search_proxy_officers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states the basic purpose without disclosing search behavior, pagination specifics, authentication, or any limitations. Since this is a search/read tool, the lack of such disclosure leaves the agent uninformed about expected behavior.

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, clear sentence that states the tool's purpose without unnecessary detail. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return format, pagination, or clarify the many undocumented parameters. This is a complex tool needing more elaboration to be fully usable by an agent.

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 56% (5 of 9 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Undocumented parameters like cik, min_age, is_independent, and accession_number remain unexplained, and the description does not compensate for these gaps.

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 identifies a precise resource ('executive officers and directors disclosed in proxy statements (DEF 14A)'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_board_members or search_compensation by referencing the filing type.

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 for when to use the tool: searching for officers/directors specifically in proxy statements. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient to infer appropriate usage given the sibling tool names.

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