full_text_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the scope ('body of every filing since 2001') and that it is a full-text search, but it omits details like pagination behavior, result format, or rate limits. The coverage note adds some value but leaves significant behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no redundant or unnecessary information. It is efficiently worded while still conveying the essential scope.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling search tools, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., filing matches with snippets), how pagination works, or how it relates to search_filings, making it difficult for an agent to confidently select it without additional context.

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 description does not add any meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. While schema coverage is 71% (q, ciks, forms, limit, cursor are described), date_from and date_to lack descriptions, and the tool description gives no context for any parameter usage, such as how to combine filters or what the required 'q' means.

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 uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('body of every EDGAR filing since 2001'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_filings that likely target metadata. The 'full-text' qualifier and date coverage make 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention search_filings for metadata searches or any scenario-specific recommendations, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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