search_filings

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'returns a paginated list' but does not state that the tool is read-only, does not modify data, or discuss rate limits, authentication, or side effects. The disclosure is minimal and insufficient for a search tool with 10 parameters.

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 two sentences: first states the action and filter dimensions, second states the return format and sources. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose, making it easy to scan.

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 complexity of 10 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview but omits details like default sorting, pagination behavior, meaning of 'paginated list', and the fact that some agencies listed in the schema (e.g., FAA_AST, NOAA) are not explicitly mentioned. Also missing hint about related tools like get_filing_detail for follow-up.

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% with descriptive parameter names and descriptions. The description adds a high-level summary of filter criteria (keyword, agency, type, status, date range) but does not provide additional semantic value beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline is appropriate at 3.

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 the tool searches space regulatory filings by multiple criteria (keyword, agency, type, status, date range) and returns a paginated list. It also names specific agencies (FCC, ITU, UNOOSA) and implies a distinct domain from sibling tools like search_sec_filings or search_federal_awards.

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 space regulatory filings but does not explicitly exclude other filings or provide guidance on when to use alternatives like get_filing_detail for a single filing or search_sec_filings for SEC filings. The sibling context suggests differentiation, but the description itself lacks clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use instructions.

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