search_filing_sections

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

With no annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: returns excerpts ranked by cosine similarity, optional scoping, and ticker resolution details (CIK formats, historical ticker mapping). It omits some operational traits like pagination or rate limits, but for a search tool the core behavior is well covered.

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 compact and information-dense, with a logical flow: purpose, return behavior, optional filters, and a detailed parameter note for ticker. However, the 'Args:' section only elaborates on ticker while other parameters are only mentioned in prose, which is slightly unbalanced but not confusing.

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's complexity (7 parameters, many optional) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, how to scope it, and key parameter semantics. It lacks explicit mention of limit defaults or exhaustive parameter list, but is sufficiently complete for an AI to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

Despite the 0% schema description coverage, the description adds substantial value: it explains ticker formats with examples (AAPL, CIK, historical FB→META), gives concrete section_type values ('item_1a' for Risk Factors, 'item_7' for MD&A), and clarifies filing_type and min_similarity. It does not detail year or limit, but defaults cover them.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Semantic search across SEC filing section content' using natural-language queries. It differentiates from sibling tools like search_filings by focusing on section-level content (10-K Risk Factors, 10-Q MD&A) and mentions ranked excerpt results.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: for semantic search over SEC filing sections with optional scoping by ticker, filing type, section type, year, and similarity threshold. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the use case is unambiguous.

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