sec_full_text_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's search capabilities and free access but omits important behavioral details such as pagination limits, result count per page, rate limits, or what happens with no results.

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 efficient with two sentences, but the first two sentences are somewhat redundant (both state full-text search across EDGAR filings). The third sentence about free access is valuable. Could be slightly more concise by merging the first two sentences.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description provides core semantics but lacks details on return structure, pagination behavior, and example usage. For a tool with 5 parameters, the description is informative but not fully complete for an agent to use without additional exploration.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context that parameters are for filtering (form, date) and pagination, but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The mention of 'supports quoted phrases' for q is already in the schema.

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 clearly states it performs full-text search on SEC EDGAR filings, specifies the ability to filter by form and date with pagination, and highlights that it's credential-free and free where others gate behind paywalls, effectively distinguishing it from other SEC tools.

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 implies usage for full-text search of EDGAR filings but does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools like sec_company_search or sec_filing. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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