sec_filing_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that this is a search operation and describes the return values (company info/CIK and link). However, it does not mention edge cases like invalid symbols or network dependencies, though these are not critical for a simple search tool.

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 with a brief summary, return-value note, explicit alternative usage, an Args section, and examples. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary verbosity, making it easy for an agent to parse and act on.

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?

For a simple single-parameter search tool, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, how to use it, and how it relates to the sibling sec_filing tool. The output schema exists, so detailed return-field documentation is not required in the description.

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?

The input schema provides only the parameter name and type ('symbol': string) with no description (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by defining the parameter as 'US stock ticker' and providing concrete examples (AAPL, MSFT, GOOGL), which is essential for correct invocation.

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: 'Search SEC EDGAR for a company and get their filing page.' It specifies the action (search), the resource (SEC EDGAR), and the return value (CIK and filing page link). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool sec_filing by explicitly noting that sec_filing retrieves specific filing documents.

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 includes an explicit 'Use sec_filing() to get specific filing documents' instruction, which tells the agent when to use this tool versus the alternative. It also provides clear usage context: this tool is for finding a company and getting the CIK/filing page link. Examples further clarify intended usage.

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