Full-text disclosure search

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

The description discloses critical behavioral traits beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations: the partial index coverage (2023–2025, nothing from 2026), relevance-ordered results, 10 per page, and the inclusion of a coverage_note. It also instructs the agent to relay the limitation, which is rich, actionable context.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core function, followed by usage guidance and a key limitation note. Every sentence provides value, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 the tool's complexity (6 params, output schema, annotations), the description covers the essential context: purpose, alternative usage, index limitations, ordering, pagination, and the coverage_note. With an output schema present, the description need not elaborate on return values beyond what is already provided.

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 carries the burden. It adds meaning for the main parameter 'keyword' by indicating the search term for wording inside filings, but it does not explain optional parameters like symbol, dates, or subject_title. The schema titles provide minimal semantics, so the description only partially compensates for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 the tool performs full-text search inside disclosure attachments and returns matching snippets, distinguishing it from sibling search_disclosures by explicitly noting the alternative use case. The verb 'search' and resource 'disclosure attachments' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is given: 'Use this to find wording within filings' and 'For "what did company X disclose recently", use search_disclosures instead.' This directly instructs when to use this tool versus the sibling, satisfying the criteria for alternatives and exclusions.

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