search_sec_filing_rag

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the search is local and attribution is provided, but it does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, how attribution is represented, or any limitations. The behavioral insight is minimal.

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 a single efficient sentence of 10 words, front-loaded with the action. No filler or redundant content.

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?

While the output schema may define return values, the description omits essential usage context such as the meaning of 'cik', how 'limit' behaves, and what 'attributable lexical retrieval' entails. For a 3-parameter tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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?

All three parameters (cik, limit, query) have no descriptions in the schema (0% coverage). The description does not mention any of them or their semantics, so the agent has no additional meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 verb 'Search', the resource 'locally indexed SEC filing chunks', and the method 'attributable lexical retrieval'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like index_sec_filing (which indexes) and get_sec_company_facts (which retrieves facts).

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?

No guidance is provided about when to prefer this over other search/retrieval tools. Only a statement of function exists; there is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing to run index_sec_filing first) or alternatives.

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