Full-text search of SEC filings

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context: the search covers filings since 2001, supports exact phrases in double quotes, and returns company, form, filing date, and document URL for each hit.

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 with no filler. The purpose and key example are front-loaded, and each sentence contributes meaningful information: scope, query syntax, filters, and output behavior.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by explicitly naming the returned fields: company, form, filing date, and document URL. Parameter behavior is well covered by schema descriptions. Minor additional details, such as no-result behavior or pagination handling are not described, but the tool's essential calling context is complete enough.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents every parameter. The description reinforces the main filters and query syntax with an example, but adds only slightly to what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search the full text of all SEC filings since 2001.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like edgar_list_filings, edgar_search_companies, and edgar_search_concepts by emphasizing full-text content search.

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 when to use the tool: full-text search over SEC filings, with filters by form type, date range, and company. It also points to a follow-up action, edgar_read_filing, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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