search_filings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that – no mention of result caps, rate limits, auth requirements, or what happens with zero matches – so it contributes no behavioral context not already in structured data.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence and the parameter list is scannable. The trailing "Returns: Dictionary containing search results" is redundant padding given a full output schema exists, which is the only real waste.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile, so the remaining obligation is parameter clarity. It meets that at a minimum level given 0% schema coverage over five parameters, though it leaves form_type values and limit/pagination semantics unexplained.

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 parameter burden. It does list all five parameters with brief glosses and, usefully, the date format (YYYY-MM-DD) that the schema omits. But the glosses are terse (e.g. "SEC form type to filter by") and omit accepted form_type values, whether multiple values are allowed, or how the limit interacts with paging.

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 SEC filings") and notes the primary axis (company name) plus open criteria. However, it never distinguishes itself from overlapping siblings such as get_company_filings, full_text_search, or get_filing_content, so an agent cannot tell which filing-search tool to pick without comparing schemas.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite several sibling tools that clearly overlap (full_text_search, get_company_filings, download_filing_text). The agent is left to infer the selection criteria entirely on its own.

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