search_filings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description reinforces this at the end with 'This tool is read-only.' It adds value by explaining optional filters, comma-separation behavior, and the inclusive date semantics, which goes beyond the schema. Also clarifies that returns complete filing rows without document text, which is useful.

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 well-structured: starts with the purpose, then explains filter combinability, date format, ordering, and return behavior. It's a bit long (about 100 words) but each sentence adds important operational detail. The front-loading is effective, and there's no redundancy with the schema. Slightly verbose but purposeful.

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 has 13 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: filter usage, date format, ordering, and that it doesn't return document text. It doesn't explain pagination details like page_size/offset, but the schema covers that. The output schema presumably details the return structure, so not explaining it here is fine. It's complete enough for safe invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context on comma-separation and the special 'unprocessed' status for document_status, which is not in the schema. However, it doesn't explain all parameters (like offset, page_size, exchange), but the schema already does that. Overall, it adds some but not substantial meaning 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'find filings by ticker, type, status, date range, or title text' – a specific verb, resource, and searchable attributes. This helps distinguish it from siblings like search_documents (which likely searches document content) and get_filing/filings (which likely retrieve specific filings).

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?

It explains the search criteria and combinability, but doesn't explicitly mention when to prefer this over siblings like get_filing or list_pending_filings. The line 'call get_filing for the document' gives a hint for follow-up but doesn't cover exclusion cases. Some guidance is implied (search vs. retrieval) but not explicit.

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