search_fee_filings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses return fields and the input resolution behavior, which is solid. It omits potential limitations (e.g., what 'recent' means, error handling) but is sufficiently informative for a read-only search tool.

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?

Three tightly written sentences: purpose, return fields, and workflow. No redundant fluff, front-loaded with the most important information.

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 3 params and no output schema, it covers the essential aspects: what it finds, what it returns, and how to proceed. It does not detail ordering/pagination but the limit param in schema addresses one form of control.

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 already described. The description adds minimal param-specific semantics beyond emphasizing automatic identifier resolution, which is also in the schema. Thus the baseline 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 the tool finds registration statement filings with Exhibit 107 fee disclosures, and specifies the returned fields (accession numbers, form types, filing dates, EDGAR URLs). It differentiates from siblings by directing users to call get_fee_exhibit for full parsing, establishing a clear niche.

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?

It provides a concrete workflow by instructing to use results with get_fee_exhibit, and states input resolution (tickers, names, CIKs). It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives like search_filings_by_fee, but the tool's role is clear.

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