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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the trailing "Read-only" adds nothing. The description does add some real context by saying the response includes each field's value and source plus the fields still missing, which tells the agent it can use this to detect filing gaps — though much of that overlaps with the existing output schema.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the return value and its locating dimensions, with no filler. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description need not detail return values, and it is adequately short for a read tool. However, for a tool whose parameters are the whole identification story and whose schema coverage is 25%, the absence of period-format and enum semantics leaves an agent likely to guess at inputs.

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 only 25%, with the sole documented parameter being the companyId UUID wrapper, so the description should compensate but largely does not. Naming kind, jurisdiction, and period establishes them as the composite key for a calendar entry, but it gives no format or semantics for period (e.g., year vs. YYYY-QN), no explanation of the kind enum values, and no clarification of the nested, required companyId object.

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 names a specific verb ("Returns") and resource ("the prepared filing for one calendar entry") and enumerates the identifying dimensions (kind, jurisdiction, period). It is clearly distinguishable from staging/mutation siblings such as filings_stage_form_d, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with filings_get_calendar, which produces the calendar entries referenced here.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus its closest siblings (filings_get_calendar, filings_stage_form_d, filings_stage_blue_sky_notice). The phrase "for one calendar entry" hints that it is a follow-up read after fetching the calendar, but that workflow is left entirely to inference.

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