sec_filing_search

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about the full-text scope across all SEC EDGAR filings and explains form type meanings. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, or any limitations. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences: the first states the main purpose, the second lists form types. All information is relevant and front-loaded. There is no redundancy with schema details—the form type explanations add value. Extremely concise.

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 simple search tool with full schema descriptions and a readOnly annotation, the description is largely complete. It gives the search scope and form type meanings. Missing is explicit mention of the return format or any result size limits, but these are not critical for a basic search tool with no output schema.

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 each parameter described, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining what each form type represents (e.g., 10-K annual, 10-Q quarterly, 8-K current events). This enhances understanding of the 'forms' parameter beyond the schema's simple list.

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's function: "Full-text search across all SEC EDGAR filings" and specifies search dimensions (company name, keyword, topic). It also lists form types (10-K, 10-Q, etc.), which differentiates it from sibling tools like sec_company_search. This is specific and distinguishes the tool's scope.

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 by stating what can be searched (company name, keyword, topic) and lists form types, giving context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as when to prefer sec_company_search or sec_company_financials. No exclusions are provided.

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