search_filings_by_fee

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the full-text search scope, the 1993 time limit, and support for phrases/boolean/wildcards. However, it does not clarify whether the tool returns filings or companies, nor does it mention read-only nature, pagination, or rate limits—leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 three-sentence description is front-loaded with the core action, followed by usage examples and search capabilities. Each sentence adds value with no redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The description covers scope and use cases well, but the lack of an output schema makes the return value ambiguous (filings vs. companies). It also does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'search_fee_filings', which could hinder tool selection in an agentic context.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by emphasizing full-text search and registration statement scope, and gives query examples (e.g., rule 457(o)), but it does not add meaning to date or limit parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action ('full-text search'), the resource ('all EDGAR filing documents since 1993'), and the scope ('registration statements'), with concrete use cases like finding companies by security type or rule. This distinguishes it from broader sibling tools such as 'search_fee_filings'.

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 explicit usage scenarios: 'find all companies that registered a specific security type, used a specific rule... or mention specific terms in their fee exhibits.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the 'scoped to registration statements' phrasing implies its specialized niche.

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