xbrl_edgar_search

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

Annotations already indicate it is read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds context about full-text search and the JSON return format, which goes beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or behavior for empty queries, though these are partially covered by schema constraints.

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-loads the main purpose, and includes structured Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema and detailed input schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and return format. It mentions optional filters and limits, which is sufficient for a search tool, though it could note result ordering or default sorting.

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% at the top level, but nested parameters have good descriptions. The tool description summarizes 'Search query, optional type/date filters, limit,' adding meaning beyond the schema by grouping and clarifying purpose. This compensates for the lack of a top-level description.

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?

Description clearly states it performs full-text search across SEC EDGAR filings by company name, keyword, or content, and returns matching filings with metadata. The title annotation 'Search SEC EDGAR' reinforces this, but it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like xbrl_search_text or xbrl_edgar_bulk_facts, leaving some ambiguity.

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 use for searching filings but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not or exclusions are mentioned, so the agent must infer usage context from the tool name and sibling list.

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