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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: results are informational, read automatically from public filings, may contain errors, and must always show the source link and never be presented as investment advice. This goes beyond annotations and sets expectations for reliability and usage.

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 well-structured: front-loaded with the main purpose, then details of content, followed by caveats. While slightly long, each sentence contributes (scope, content, reliability, advice disclaimer), with no filler. It earns its length.

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 explains the return structure (fund, deadline, what to do, as-of dates, links) and the data source (SEC filings). It covers the essentials for an agent to call and interpret results, though pagination or result limits are not mentioned, which is a minor gap.

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 all three parameters (kind, since, only_open) are fully documented in the schema with detailed descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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 lists recent announcements across all U.S. closed-end funds, specifying the types (buy-back offers, votes, closings, etc.) and the content per item (fund, deadline, action). This specific verb-resource-scope combination distinguishes it from fund-specific tools like get_fund_events.

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 implies usage for cross-fund announcement scanning but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_fund_events or latest_filings, nor state when to prefer this tool over alternatives. The scope is clear but exclusions or conditions are missing.

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