search_filings

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It does not mention pagination behavior, error handling, rate limits, or that the tool is read-only. The examples show limited context but do not address what happens with empty results or API limits.

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 three sentences plus two code examples, all front-loaded and concise. Every sentence adds information, and the examples are helpful for quick understanding.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality and key parameters but lacks details on pagination, output format, and edge cases. It is adequate for simple use 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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains ticker, cik, form, and date range, but omits 'page' and 'limit' entirely from the text (though limit appears in example). The description adds value beyond schema but does not fully cover all 7 parameters.

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 searches SEC EDGAR filings, specifies the identifiers (ticker or CIK) and filters (form type, date range), and distinguishes from sibling tools like search_companies or analyze_filing by focusing on filings discovery.

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 says 'Use for discovering recent or historical regulatory filings' and provides practical examples. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings (e.g., when to use analyze_filing instead) or state when not to use this tool.

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