sec_filing_search

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds behavioral context by specifying it performs full-text search across all EDGAR filings, searchable by company name, keyword, or topic, and lists form types. It does not disclose limitations like rate limits or result size, but given the read-only nature, this is sufficient.

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 extremely concise: three sentences that front-load the purpose, then add searchable criteria, then form types. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or filler.

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 search tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers key aspects: what it searches (all EDGAR filings), how to search (by company, keyword, topic), and common form types. It does not describe return fields, but that is acceptable given no output schema. It is nearly complete.

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 already provides descriptions for all 4 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by listing the specific form types and clarifying that the query can be a company name, keyword, or topic, which is not in the schema descriptions. This helps agents understand the intended use of the query parameter.

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 it is a full-text search across SEC EDGAR filings, with specific searchable criteria (company name, keyword, topic) and a list of common form types. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling SEC tools like sec_company_search or sec_company_financials, which might also be used for similar purposes.

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 implies usage for searching filings by various criteria and filtering by form types, but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sec_company_financials. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites.

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