filings_search

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing ingestion latency (~1 minute from SEC acceptance), pagination via cursor and long-poll semantics with wait=, and the x402/API-key access model including that HTTP 402 carries a decoded price quote rather than being a failure — that last point materially prevents an agent from misreading an error. Slightly short of 5 because it doesn't state rate limits or response envelope shape.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and freshness promise, then usage routing, then behavior/pricing — a sensible information hierarchy. Minor redundancy: the form-type list (8-K, Form 4, 13D/13G, 10-K, 10-Q) is repeated verbatim in the opening sentence and again in the 'Use when' sentence.

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?

For an eight-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: filter surface, pagination/polling mechanics, latency expectations, and payment/auth paths including the non-obvious 402-as-quote case. Nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so all eight parameters are already documented with defaults and ranges (days default 2/max 90, wait max 25, limit max 200). The description only restates the parameter names in prose ('form, ticker, CIK or 8-K item', 'page with a cursor, or long-poll with wait='), though the inline example does helpfully show day-scoped item filtering. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Structured SEC filings feed') with an explicit form-type enumeration and freshness guarantee ('ingested within about a minute of SEC acceptance'). It also names the two sibling tools it is *not* (filings_8k_events, filings_insider_trades), so an agent can disambiguate without opening schemas.

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?

Provides an explicit 'Use when...' condition (structured filings filtered by ticker/form/time) plus explicit exclusions routing to filings_8k_events for classified event alerts and filings_insider_trades for insider trades. Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

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