search_filing_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that results are verbatim passages, highlights that this is cheaper than paging a full filing, and explains the meaning of a no-match result. It also documents behavioral nuances like accession precedence, which is valuable context 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 purpose-first and concise, with the core function stated in the first sentence. The cost comparison sentence adds practical value, and the Args section is a compact, scannable list. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary but every sentence contributes to understanding.

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?

This description is highly complete for a search tool with 6 parameters and an output schema. It explains all parameters, provides usage guidance, defines no-match semantics, and clarifies precedence. The presence of an output schema means the return structure need not be described. Minor omissions like error handling are not critical for tool selection and 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?

The description provides a meaningful definition for each of the 6 parameters, including real-world examples (query: 'stock-based compensation'), precedence semantics (accession takes precedence), and the unit for context (characters). Since schema description coverage is 0%, this fully compensates and goes beyond the schema's bare property titles and defaults.

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 'Passages of a filing around every occurrence of a term, verbatim,' which clearly states the tool's function and output. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_filing_text or get_filings, which likely return full documents rather than targeted passages.

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 a concrete use case (finding a specific paragraph in a 10-K) and explains cost advantages over paging through the full document. It also clarifies that a no-match result means the term is absent from this document, not the company's filings. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, which would make it a 5.

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