search_filings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the search action but does not mention pagination behavior, rate limits, result format, whether it returns metadata or full text, or any other behavioral traits. For a search tool, this is a notable gap; the description provides no information beyond the verb '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, focused sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then succinctly lists the main filters. There is no redundancy or filler, making it an efficient and well-structured description.

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?

The tool has 10 optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, yet the description does not mention pagination via cursor/limit, additional filters like is_xbrl or sic, or what the search returns. This is incomplete guidance for a tool with this complexity, leaving important invocation details to the schema alone.

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 coverage is 100%, with every parameter having a description. The tool description adds a high-level summary of key filters (CIK, form type, date range, keyword) but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('EDGAR filing index'), and scope ('across all form types'), which distinguishes it from more specialized sibling search tools like search_insider_transactions or search_13f_holdings. It also lists concrete filter dimensions (CIK, form type, date range, keyword), 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 gives clear context: this is the tool to use for broad searches of the EDGAR filing index across all form types. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the phrase 'across all form types' effectively differentiates it from more narrowly scoped sibling searches, providing implied usage guidance.

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