search_trading_suspensions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only lists searchable fields. It does not mention pagination behavior, date range inclusivity, result format, or any filters like limit or cursor, so the agent has little insight into how the tool behaves beyond the basic search action.

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 with no filler words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and key search dimensions, earning its place without redundancy.

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?

Despite having six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides only a one-line summary. It omits essential operational details such as pagination via cursor, default limits, result structure, and the nature of the date filters, making the tool incomplete for reliable autonomous use.

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 50%, and the description merely restates 'company name, release number, and date' without adding meaning for the undocumented parameters (date_from, date_to, release_number). It fails to explain date formats, range semantics, or how wildcard patterns work for company, leaving significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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 identifies the tool's action ('Search') and its specific resource ('SEC trading-suspension orders'), and it names the main search facets (company name, release number, date). This distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_filings or search_enforcement by focusing on a unique SEC document 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus other search tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer its appropriate context from the name alone.

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