search_compensation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds context that records are extracted from proxy statements and mentions compensation components, but it omits details like pagination behavior, result ordering, or filtering semantics. The description is not misleading but lacks depth for a search tool with many parameters.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word contributes meaningful information, avoiding unnecessary detail while conveying the essential domain and data 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?

For a 10-parameter tool with no output schema, no annotations, and only 40% schema description coverage, this description is far too sparse. It fails to clarify the many filter options (e.g., filer_cik, accession_number), pagination via cursor, or how results are structured. The agent would be left guessing about basic usage and capabilities.

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 only 40%, leaving six parameters completely undocumented. The description does not explain any of the filter parameters (e.g., min_total_usd, fiscal_year) beyond what the schema already provides. It merely mentions 'salary, bonus, awards, total' as data fields, which does not map clearly to the schema parameters, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 'executive-compensation records extracted from proxy statements' and lists the key data fields (salary, bonus, awards, total). This specific verb+resource scope distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_insider_transactions or search_proxy_officers, which target different data domains.

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 usage for executive-compensation data but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusionary conditions or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer appropriate use from the domain alone.

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