Search SEC Companies

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

Annotations already declare idempotent, read-only, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the tool covers all SEC-registered companies and returns specific fields, but does not discuss rate limits, pagination, or other behavioral traits that would further assist an agent.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The action verb 'Search' is front-loaded, and the description efficiently conveys purpose, input, output, and scope.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not detail return values. However, it lacks information about rate limits, pagination, or when to use this specific search over sibling tools. It is adequate for a search tool but not fully complete.

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% with clear parameter descriptions for 'query' (name/ticker/keyword) and 'limit' (max results). The tool description adds context about the scope (US public companies, SEC EDGAR) but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies due to high coverage.

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 searches US public companies and SEC filings by name/ticker/keyword, listing return fields (name, CIK, form type, filing date). It implicitly covers all SEC-registered companies, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'finance.edgar.filings' or 'finance.edgar.company_facts'.

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 usage for initial discovery of companies or filings, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'finance.edgar.company_facts' for detailed data or 'finance.edgar.filings' for specific filings. No exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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