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

Annotations already indicate the tool is readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds clarity on behavioral traits: it retrieves the latest filing, returns 'clean text', and provides a listing mode when 'item' is omitted. This complements the annotations well, though some details like error handling are missing.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that front-load the core purpose and examples, followed by a specific usage hint. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or irrelevant information.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description could be more explicit about the return format (e.g., plain text, multiple sections at once). It implies a list when 'item' is omitted and a single section when provided, but this is not fully spelled out. The description is sufficient for basic usage but leaves some gaps for an AI agent.

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 parameters are well-documented. The description reinforces the behavior of omitting 'item' to list sections, which is already in the schema description for 'item'. It adds minimal new semantics beyond reminding the agent of this optional feature, resulting in a baseline score.

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 retrieves narrative sections from the latest 10-K/10-Q filings, listing specific items (Risk Factors, MD&A, Business). The verb 'get' matches the tool name, and the resource is distinctly different from sibling tools (company, events, filings, etc.), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 the useful hint to omit 'item' to list available sections, which helps the agent decide when to call without parameters. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool, prerequisites (e.g., valid ticker), or comparison to alternatives among siblings. The context is adequate but minimal.

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