search_filings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable context by disclosing the 2001-onward restriction and the return of document URLs, but does not cover pagination, rate limits, or explicit read-only nature, leaving gaps in behavioral disclosure.

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: two sentences with no filler, directly stating the action and result. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently conveys essential information.

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 5-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description is under-specified. It omits parameter semantics, return structure details beyond 'document URLs', and any usage caveats, making it insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional inference.

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%, and the description provides no explanation for the 5 parameters (q, forms, limit, since, until). It fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions, leaving parameter meaning entirely to inference from parameter names.

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 'Full-text search across EDGAR filings' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like list_filings by emphasizing keyword-based search. It also specifies the date range (2001 onward) and output (document URLs), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 the tool is for keyword-based searching of filings, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it lacks the exclusions that would earn a 5.

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