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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld semantics. The description adds genuinely new behavioral traits beyond them: that the operation is 'free' (cost model) and that results carry 'explicit coverage limits' (partial-result semantics). Cost and coverage transparency are meaningful additions not present in structured fields.

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?

Two dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the primary listing behavior leads and the usage instruction follows. Slightly penalized because phrases like 'checkpoint coverage' carry domain-specific opacity without definition.

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?

An output schema exists so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the key missing context an agent needs — that this is the free confirm-before-buying step — making it largely complete for a listing 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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (forms, limit, history, identifier) are already documented in the schema. The description alludes to 'requested forms' and history via 'bounded historical', but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('List ... SEC filings') with scope modifiers ('recent or bounded historical') and stated return content ('canonical source metadata and explicit coverage limits'). It implicitly contrasts with a paid 'disclosure-change check', which loosely differentiates it from siblings, but does not name an alternative tool directly.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: as a free pre-check to 'confirm the requested forms and checkpoint coverage before buying a disclosure-change check.' This gives clear context and an ordering against a downstream paid operation, though it does not state explicit when-not conditions.

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