Search Corporate Insiders

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

With readOnlyHint already declaring safety, the description adds meaningful behavior: strict whole-word matching first, broadening only when no strict row matches, no partial-token matches, alias resolution, and result ordering by recent filing activity. It does not disclose pagination or rate-limit behavior, but the schema already covers paging.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and every sentence contributes useful search semantics. The second sentence is dense and technical, but it earns its length by explaining the non-obvious matching rules.

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 name-search tool with no output schema, the description covers the tracked population, query matching semantics, alias behavior, returned fields (CIK, role, latest filing company, location), and ordering. Pagination is already fully documented in the schema, so no essential information is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema's bare 'Search query for insider name' by explaining punctuation-independent whole-word matching, strict-then-broad fallback, and alias resolution such as Jensen Huang, which materially clarifies how to form the query parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Search the tracked SEC corporate-insider set (directors, officers, 10% owners) by name.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search tools such as SearchCongressMembers and SearchInstitutions by domain and by the name-based lookup.

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 explains the search's matching algorithm in detail but never explicitly says when to choose it over siblings like GetInsiderTransactions or GetInsiderOwnership. Usage is implied by 'Search ... by name,' so an agent can infer the intent, but no alternatives or exclusions are named.

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