search_filings

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses the return format (list of matched documents with company name, section, and snippet) and parameter behaviors like default limit. However, it does not mention potential caveats such as rate limits, auth requirements, or data scope limitations. The description accurately portrays a read-only search operation but could include more behavioral context.

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 concise and well-structured with an Args/Returns format. Every sentence contributes useful information—the purpose statement, parameter explanations, and return description—without repetition or fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 (4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema), the description provides a complete picture: what the tool does, all parameter semantics, and the return structure. It also includes a concrete query example. The only minor gap is a lack of error-handling or edge-case information, but this is not critical for a straightforward search tool.

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 schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates by detailing each parameter: query with an example, section with an explicit list of allowed values, company as a partial-match filter, and limit with a default value. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema fields, making parameter semantics excellent.

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 performs full-text search of securities report text (有価証券報告書のテキストを全文検索します). It uses a specific verb and resource, and the name 'search_filings' aligns with its function. It distinguishes from siblings like get_filing_section and compare_sections by focusing on searching across filings, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 explains what the tool does but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus sibling tools such as get_filing_section or compare_sections. Usage context is implied: use it to find filings by content, but no 'when not to use' or alternative recommendations are given. This makes the usage guidelines adequate but not explicit.

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