search_filings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true and openWorldHint: true, so the description is not responsible for those. The description adds context about full-text search and parameter formatting (e.g., 'use quotes for exact phrases'), but does not disclose details like pagination, result limits beyond the limit parameter, or potential idiosyncrasies of SEC filings. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not richly transparent.

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 brief and front-loaded with the purpose. It uses newlines for readability and each sentence adds value. No redundant information.

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?

Given 5 parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations are provided, the description covers most necessary context. It explains the search functionality and the main parameters but omits the 'limit' parameter. For a simple search tool with output schema, this is mostly 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for query (free text, quotes for exact phrases), forms (optional list of form types), and date_from/date_to (ISO dates). However, it does not describe the 'limit' parameter, which has a default of 20. This is a partial but useful addition beyond the schema.

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 'Full-text search across SEC filing documents,' specifying the verb (search), resource (SEC filing documents), and scope (full-text). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_filings (likely list without full-text) and lookup_issuer (lookup issuer data).

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 provides parameter details but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage through the context of SEC filings but does not state exclusions or recommend alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify when to use search_filings vs list_filings.

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