search_enforcement

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the search functionality and does not mention whether it is read-only, paginated, or has any side effects, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name 'search'.

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, front-loaded sentence that lists the key search dimensions with no wasted words. It is compact and immediately conveys the tool's purpose.

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 tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not cover pagination, all filter parameters (case_number), or any behavioral details, making it insufficient for full invocation without additional schema inspection.

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 adds meaning to several schema parameters by listing them as search filters (agency, action_kind, date, penalty), partially compensating for the low schema coverage. However, it omits case_number and pagination parameters, and does not explain the exact semantics of the date range or penalty minimum.

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 SEC/agency enforcement actions, specifying key filter dimensions (respondent, agency, action kind, date, penalty). It distinguishes from siblings like search_litigation and search_filings by focusing on enforcement actions rather than general filings or court cases.

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 gives clear context that this tool is for searching enforcement actions, making it evident when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the scope is well-defined.

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