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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool never contacts a register, is free, and only shows deadline info where a cached register record exists. This gives the agent important expectations about cost and data availability without needing external hints.

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?

Three short sentences each add distinct value: the scope of results, the fields shown, and the behavioral guarantee of no register contact. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, the description explains what is returned, mentions the caching caveat, and states the cost/network behavior. It could be more explicit about the exact output structure, but it is sufficient for an agent to select and 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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies because the schema is empty and the tool requires no input decisions.

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 returns 'every company this user gets deadline reminders about,' including companies implied by saved filings. This gives a specific resource and scope, and distinguishes the tool from list_saved_filings without needing to open the 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?

The description provides useful context cues: it covers deadline-reminder companies, includes implied saved-filing companies, and notes that it never contacts a register. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative or state when not to use it, but the context strongly implies its role as the lightweight, free list.

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