searchFundDisclosures

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful output context (CIK, entity information, reporting file number) but says nothing about matching semantics — exact vs partial name match, case sensitivity, or what happens when the name is ambiguous or returns multiple funds.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded correctly, but the second is largely restatement plus filler ('This API allows you to find specific reports and filings'), and 'Easily' is promotional noise. Tightening to one sentence naming input and outputs would lose nothing.

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 one-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers the input and sketches the return fields, which is adequate. Missing are match behavior and result-set size/ambiguity handling — the main things an agent needs to call a name-search correctly.

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% and the schema labels 'name' ambiguously as 'Name of the holder to search for'; the description corrects this by specifying it is the fund or ETF name. That resolves a real ambiguity the schema leaves open, which is more than baseline credit.

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: name-based search over mutual fund and ETF disclosures, with the returned fields (CIK, entity info, file number) named. It stops short of distinguishing itself from close siblings like getFundDisclosure, getFundDisclosureDates, or getESGDisclosures, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone why name-search is preferred over those.

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 phrase 'search ... by name' implies the name-search route, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no named alternative such as getFundDisclosure for identifier-based lookup. The agent must infer routing from the tool name alone.

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