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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description rightly spends its budget on semantics instead: results are predictions from filing history rather than announced dates, ordering is soonest-first, and the period currently held is returned. It adds real interpretive value, though it says nothing about result volume or pagination.

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?

Front-loaded with the scope and ordering, then the caveats and the sibling pointer, in four tight sentences. Every sentence earns its place, including the earnings-date warning, which prevents a concrete misinterpretation.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so: predicted date, form, and period currently held, in soonest-first order. Combined with the prediction caveat and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it correctly.

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%, so both parameters (days, form) are already documented in the schema. The description restates the day window and implies the form filter through its form list, but adds no format or default detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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+resource+scope: every covered company expected to file a 10-Q/10-K (or 6-K/20-F) within N days, sorted soonest first, with predicted date/form/period. It also names the sibling that covers the single-company case (get_company), so an agent can distinguish it without opening another schema.

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?

"Use it to see whose data refreshes soon" gives the triggering intent, and "One company's next filing is in get_company" explicitly routes the alternative case. It further warns that a filing date is not an earnings date, preventing a plausible misuse.

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