search_full_text

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so excellently. It discloses the 2001-only coverage, the refusal to silently narrow date ranges, the 'zero results does not mean never filed' caveat, and the fact that it returns matching filings rather than matching text. It also advises follow-up with get_filing_section, giving agents realistic expectations about the tool's output.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is longer than average, but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the most critical caveat (2001 coverage), then covers usage, parameter semantics, and return value structure without repetition. The structured Args/Returns sections make it easy for an agent to extract the information needed for correct invocation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is complete for a tool of this complexity. It covers the key behavioral caveat, the exact match syntax, the result contents, the follow-up step, and the alternatives for older filings. The output schema exists, and the description supplements it with a clear summary of what is returned, so an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: query (including exact-phrase double quotes), forms (with example), date_from (must be 2001 or later), date_to (YYYY-MM-DD), and limit (default 10). This adds crucial semantic meaning that the bare schema lacks, especially the 2001 constraint on date_from.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search the full text of EDGAR filings.' It clearly differentiates this from siblings by limiting to full-text search and explicitly stating earlier filings should be accessed via list_filings and get_filing_section. This gives an agent an unambiguous sense of what the tool does and where it fits.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use it to find which companies discussed a topic, or which filing of a company first mentioned something.' It also names the alternatives for pre-2001 filings and warns that zero results may mean the filing predates 2001 rather than that the phrase never occurred. This is strong routing guidance with no ambiguity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.