search_within_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the core read-only search behavior and the output shape, but it does not mention side effects, extraction prerequisites, pagination, max_hits behavior, or edge cases. It is adequate but not rich.

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?

One sentence with a leading verb and no filler. Every phrase adds meaning: the search action, the input type (extracted text), and the output (passages with offsets).

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 tool has four parameters with no schema descriptions and no annotations, so more context is required. The output schema covers the return shape, but the missing parameter semantics and lack of usage guidance leave the description incomplete for correct invocation.

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%, and the description only clarifies 'query' by referring to it as a query. It does not explain accession_number, filename, or max_hits, leaving the agent to guess why both identifiers are required and how max_hits limits results.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Search'), a resource ('extracted text'), and an explicit output ('passages with page/char offsets'). This makes it clear what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like get_filing_text and read_document, which return full text rather than matched passages with offsets.

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 gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives. It does not mention that it is for searching within a single document rather than across filings, and it does not contrast with siblings such as search_filings, get_filing_text, or read_document.

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