edgar_search

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

The description adds value beyond the annotations by stating that the tool returns metadata (accession numbers, form types, direct sec.gov links). The annotations already confirm read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the description provides useful additional 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 extremely concise (two sentences), with the first sentence stating the core purpose and the second providing best-use context and output details. No unnecessary words.

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 (5 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately explains the output format (metadata with accession numbers, form types, links). It does not cover pagination or limits beyond what the schema provides, but the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to explain parameters. It mentions the keyword search implicitly but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 action (search by keyword) and resource (SEC EDGAR filings). It distinguishes from sibling tools like edgar_company_filings by specifying that it searches across all companies for mentions of specific trends or events, rather than retrieving all filings for a specific company.

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 explicitly notes that the tool is best for finding mentions of specific topics across all companies, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, only implying differentiation through the sibling tool list.

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