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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds rich behavioral context: it is source material only with nothing inferred, some bundles are free while others require x402 payment terms, unknown tickers return not_covered, and ZIP bytes are only served via HTTP routes. This fully discloses delivery and access behavior an agent needs.

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 dense but every sentence adds operational value: bundle contents, free tickers, payment terms, not_covered behavior, and delivery constraints. It is somewhat long but appropriately front-loaded with the core definition before the pricing and delivery details.

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 burden of explaining return values, and it does: manifest URL, workbook contents, quarterly-card pointer, payable URLs, x402 terms, and not_covered. It gives enough detail for an agent to know what to expect and how to invoke the tool 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?

The input schema already covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining the slug's default behavior ('defaults to listing every bundle held for the ticker') and giving concrete slug/ticker format examples, which helps the agent construct valid calls.

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 states a specific verb ('Find'), a specific resource (SEC 10-K / 10-Q filing bundle), and enumerates the bundle contents: filing HTML, consolidated statements workbook, manifest, and quarterly-card pointer. It also explicitly differentiates itself by describing free vs. payable tickers and the not_covered case, making its scope unmistakable.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate — retrieving a full filing bundle for a ticker — and explains the default behavior when no slug is provided. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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