search_positions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns one row per (filing, argument) and lists filterable fields, but does not state whether the tool is read-only, mention rate limits, or describe potential side effects.

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 a single paragraph of 4 sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value—scope, filters, examples, return format—with no wasted words.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context: return format, filing types included, and example queries. It could be improved by adding a note about data freshness or performance characteristics.

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?

All 8 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description reinforces the schema but does not compensate for missing details.

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 LLM-extracted policy arguments across COMMENT/REPLY/PETITION filings, using a specific verb ('Search') and precise resource ('policy arguments'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the domain and extraction method.

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 example queries ('who opposed X?', 'what did SpaceX argue?') that clarify when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives like search_filings or search_semantic.

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