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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds value by clarifying the output content (issuer, jurisdiction, industry, amounts, exemption, related persons, date of first sale), which helps the agent understand what the parsed result will look like. No contradictory behavior is mentioned.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the definition and then giving clear usage instructions. Every word adds value, and it effectively communicates the tool's purpose and input paradigm without unnecessary detail or padding.

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 simple read-only tool with only two parameters, the description provides sufficient context: what data is returned, how to specify an issuer vs. the latest feed, and the general nature of the filings. The lack of a detailed output schema is compensated by listing the mapped fields in the description. Minor gaps like pagination or error handling are not critical given the tool's simplicity and the annotation-provided safety profile.

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 both parameters (identifier, limit) with detailed descriptions. The tool description repeats the identifier usage (CIK/ticker/latest) but adds no new semantic information beyond the schema. Given the 100% schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description doesn't further clarify parameter behavior or defaults beyond what's already documented.

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 defines what the tool does: it provides parsed Form D notices, a specific type of SEC filing for private placements. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on a niche filing type and enumerating the data fields returned, making it unmistakable which resource is accessed.

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 explicit usage instructions: pass a CIK (or ticker if public) for a single issuer, or use 'latest' for the market-wide feed. This tells the agent how to invoke the tool with different identifier types, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_filings or search_filings, though the unique focus on Form D makes the intended use fairly evident.

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