search_filings

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

With no annotations, the description provides useful behavioral context: it returns filing metadata with accession numbers and explains ticker alias resolution (e.g., 'FB' resolves to META). However, it does not disclose rate limits, pagination, or any restrictions on date ranges, which would be valuable for a no-annotation 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 front-loaded with its core purpose and then provides relevant examples in an args block. It is not overly verbose, but the structure slightly favors ticker details while leaving other parameters implied, which feels uneven but still concise.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need no further explanation. The description covers the main search dimensions (company, type, date range) and notes the output is metadata. Minor gaps remain around the limit parameter and date format, but these are not critical given the output schema and optional nature of parameters.

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 partially compensates. It thoroughly explains the 'ticker' parameter with examples and enumerates valid values for 'type'. However, it does not describe 'limit', 'to_date', or 'from_date' formats or behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for agents.

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 opens with 'Search SEC filings by company, type (10-K, 10-Q, 8-K, 4, DEF 14A, 13F-HR), and date range,' which is a specific verb+resource+scope statement. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_filing_sections or search_companies.

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 implies when to use the tool through its purpose and includes one usage note ('Omit to search all companies'), but it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions. There is no mention of when to prefer search_filing_sections or other related tools.

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