filings_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description is solely responsible for disclosing behavior. It only states 'Search filings...' with no mention of what is returned (e.g., document metadata, links, full text), whether results are paginated, what happens if no results match, or any access restrictions. It does not clarify the nature of the search (e.g., does it return only index entries? Does it require a ticker to get meaningful results?). This is minimal and leaves significant operational details unknown.

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 short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently detailed. There is no wasted phrasing; however, it omits important context that would make it fully useful. It reads more like a placeholder than a complete tool description. Thus, while it is structurally simple, it does not earn a higher score because it sacrifices critical information for brevity.

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 tool has 4 parameters with 2 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should at least outline the expected result format or indicate whether it returns metadata or content. It does not clarify whether this is a search that returns multiple filings or a single one, whether it requires a ticker to narrow results, or what the response structure looks like. With many sibling filings tools that likely have more detailed descriptions (e.g., filings_document_text, filings_recent), this definition is incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly without further assumptions.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all four parameters (year, quarter, form, ticker) with examples, covering 100% of them. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond restating 'year/quarter' which is already in the schema. Since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline is 3; there is no extra value from the description in clarifying parameter usage or constraints (e.g., no explanation of how form or ticker filters interact with year/quarter).

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 is a specific verb+resource: 'Search filings' with a clear scope of 'by year/quarter'. This distinguishes it from siblings like filings_recent (which likely returns recent filings without year/quarter filters) and filings_forms (which probably lists form types). However, it does not explicitly name the alternative or highlight the exact filter capabilities beyond year/quarter, and it omits other filters like form and ticker that the schema supports. This is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies a year/quarter-based search, but does not state when one would choose this over filings_recent, filings_forms, or other filings tools. No exclusions or context is provided about required filters (like needing a ticker) or scenarios where this tool is the appropriate choice. Given many sibling tools, the lack of routing guidance leaves an agent uncertain about selection.

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