search_filings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it discloses non-obvious behavior: coverage starts in 2001, multi-word queries are exact phrases, and results are filings rather than passages. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or authorization, but for a search tool the disclosed semantics are the critical part.

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 the core purpose, and each sentence adds value: use case, matching semantics, result granularity, follow-up, and narrowing strategy. There is no filler.

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 full-text search tool with an output schema, it covers the key invocation concerns: what is searched, how queries match, what results contain, and how to proceed. Minor omissions such as limit semantics and exact date formats are the only gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for query (exact-phrase matching) and mentions forms/date range with an example, but it does not explain the limit parameter or date format details.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Search the full text of all EDGAR filings from 2001 onward.' It also differentiates the tool from reading a specific company's filing by framing it as 'find WHO discusses something,' which separates it from the sibling filing-reading tools.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('find WHO discusses something') and when not ('rather than to read a company you have already identified'). It names the follow-up alternative (read_filing_section) and gives concrete narrowing guidance for common queries via forms and date range.

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