full_text_search

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds useful operational context beyond that: coverage since 2001, default date range, newest-first ordering, and that results include company, form, date, and document link.

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, then organized into compact Args and Returns sections. Every line adds useful information for invoking or interpreting the tool, with no wasted prose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. The description still summarizes return contents and ordering while fully covering the search scope, parameter defaults, and invocation constraints needed for this tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does: it explains query syntax, exact phrase usage, form_type examples, date formats and defaults, and limit range/default for all five parameters.

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: full-text search across every EDGAR filing since 2001, including exact-phrase support. The 'full text' scope clearly differentiates it from metadata-oriented sibling tools such as search_filings and get_company_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 clear context for what the tool searches and documents defaults for date filters, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus search_filings or get_company_filings. Usage is therefore implied rather than fully guided.

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