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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing the return contract ("evidence.v1 records with provenance") and the epistemic caveat that lexical relevance is not truth, which shapes how an agent should treat results.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the retrieval scope is front-loaded and the return/caveat clause follows. Every phrase earns its place.

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 an open-world, 8-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return type and a key interpretive caveat, which is genuinely useful. It still omits the default form set (10-K/10-Q), how the "bounded set" is bounded, and result-shape detail, leaving gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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?

At 63% schema description coverage, three parameters (limit, filings, history) carry no description in either place, and the description adds nothing about item, section, forms defaults, or result limits. Baselines do not apply because coverage is not high, and the description fails to compensate for the gap.

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?

States a specific verb ("Find") and resource ("primary-source evidence") with scope ("across a bounded set of SEC filings"), and the caveat "relevance is not a truth verdict" implicitly distinguishes it from verify_claim. No sibling is named explicitly, so it falls short of full differentiation but is clearly more than a bare restatement.

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 phrase "relevance is not a truth verdict" hints that verification belongs to another tool, and "bounded set of SEC filings" implies the retrieval scope. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative (e.g., scan_disclosure_changes, compare_filings), so usage is only implied.

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