Search SEC registrants

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real behavior: matching is fuzzy, a match score of 100 means an exact ticker hit, and the corpus is limited to companies with a listed ticker from company_tickers_exchange.json. That source limitation is a genuinely useful scope disclosure not present in the annotations.

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, zero filler, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the return contract. Every clause (fuzzy, CIK, match score, source file) carries information an agent needs.

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 no output schema, the description correctly enumerates return fields (CIK, name, tickers, exchange, match score) and names the data source and its coverage boundary. It stops short of explaining limit behavior or what an empty/low-score result means, which are the remaining gaps for a two-parameter search 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 50%: the query parameter is documented in the schema with the same ticker/name examples, while limit (1-25, default 5) is undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds only the fuzzy-matching nuance for query, so it neither compensates for the undocumented limit nor goes meaningfully 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Find SEC-registered public companies') plus the accepted key types (ticker or name, fuzzy). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting the returned CIK is 'the SEC id used by every other tool', which positions it as the lookup entry point relative to get_company_profile and lookup_business_entity.

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 the correct workflow by explaining that the returned CIK feeds every other tool, so an agent can infer this is the search step preceding profile/filing calls. It does not, however, explicitly state when to prefer it over lookup_business_entity or get_company_profile, so the alternative-selection guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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