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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context beyond that: data provenance ('issuer-reported Part I numbers as filed, parsed by KeyVex'), honest coverage limits ('the offering-statement family only'), and detailed record contents (issuer, tier, offering terms, service providers with fees, financials). This goes well beyond the annotation baseline.

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 long but well-structured with clear segments (purpose, when to use, form family, coverage, posture) and front-loaded with the core function. Every sentence contributes useful information, though some details could be trimmed for brevity without losing meaning.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values—and it does thoroughly: it enumerates the record fields (issuer, tier election, offering terms, service providers with fees, Part I financials). It also covers coverage boundaries and chaining behavior, making it complete for an agent to call and interpret results 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds parameter usage guidance beyond the schema: it explains how to read a chained offering ('filter cik + sort asc') and mentions the tier parameter semantics (Tier 1 vs Tier 2 limits) in context, providing extra value for invocation.

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 ('Returns') and resource ('SEC Form 1-A filings — Regulation A+ mini-IPO offering statements') with scope dates and tier distinctions. It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_crowdfunding_offerings (Reg CF) and get_registration_statements (S-1 etc.) through precise terminology and field coverage.

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 lists when to use ('Use this when the user asks about: Reg A / Reg A+ raises, mini-IPOs, small-cap capital formation, who's underwriting or auditing small offerings, or issuer financials before a raise') and when not to use (periodic reports 1-K/1-SA/1-Z are a separate dataset; offering circulars are prose documents to follow via filing_index_url). It also gives chaining guidance ('filter cik + sort asc to read it').

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