Full-text search SEC filings

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses that filings before 2001 are not indexed, results are ranked by EDGAR relevance which can favor company names, totals above 10,000 are approximate, and quote matching behavior. This fully surfaces non-obvious behavioral traits.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, then packs each additional sentence with specific, non-redundant guidance (quote behavior, sibling distinction, ranking caveat, count approximation, coverage limit). Every sentence adds value without unnecessary padding.

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 a search tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, time coverage, ranking oddity, exact-match behavior, count precision, and when to choose an alternative. This is comprehensive enough for an agent to make informed invocation decisions, including caveats that are not derivable from schema or annotations.

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 a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds meaningful semantics for the query parameter by explaining that unquoted terms match loosely and produce noise, while quoted phrases yield exact matches. It does not introduce syntax for other parameters, but the added query guidance justifies a 4.

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 the full text of all SEC filings since 2001 to find companies discussing a topic, with a concrete example. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_sec_filings by positioning this as discovery across companies versus a more direct company-specific lookup.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this for discovery across companies' and 'When you already know the company, get_sec_filings is more direct.' It also explains the exact-phrase versus unquoted search behavior, telling users when to use quotes and warning about noise.

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