edgar_text_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions default and max limit (20, max 50) for the limit parameter, which is helpful. However, it fails to disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, pagination behavior, or any restrictions on query complexity. The description could be more transparent about expected behavior beyond the schema.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses a bullet list for examples. Every sentence adds value. However, slightly longer than necessary due to the example list, but this is informative.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain the return format or what fields are returned per result. For a search tool, the agent needs to know what information is in the response (e.g., filing IDs, excerpts, relevance scores). The description provides good input guidance but lacks output context. Sufficient for basic use but incomplete for complex workflows.

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%, but the description adds value beyond schema by showing concrete usage examples (e.g., forms, dates, identifier). This helps the agent understand how to combine parameters effectively. The examples demonstrate the semantics well.

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 searches the actual text content of SEC filings via EDGAR's full-text search index, and explicitly distinguishes from edgar_search which only searches metadata. The verb+resource is specific and differentiates from siblings.

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 provides explicit usage examples (topic search, 8-K events, date range, company-specific) and explicitly contrasts with edgar_search, telling the agent when to use this tool vs the alternative.

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