filing_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the transparency burden. It discloses that results are ranked and bounded, which is meaningful behavioral context, but it does not explain ranking criteria, match behavior, or response structure. This provides basic transparency but lacks depth.

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 9-word sentence that is front-loaded and contains zero filler. Every word earns its place, and it avoids repeating schema titles.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be in the description. However, for a tool with four parameters, no annotations, and a sibling set containing similar filing tools, the description lacks usage context and parameter detail, making it minimally adequate but not fully 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%, and the description only loosely implies parameter roles: 'one filing' suggests filing_id, 'search' suggests query, and 'bounded excerpts' hints at limit and snippet_chars. It does not name parameters or clarify semantics like default behavior or how bounds are applied, so it insufficiently compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('one filing') and clarifies the result is 'ranked, bounded excerpts.' This distinguishes it from broader search or read siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use filing_search versus siblings like filing_read, filing_sections, or disclosures_search. The description only states what it does; no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations are provided.

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