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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior on its own. It does so by explaining that requests enter a nightly ingestion queue, filings are usually available within ~24h, and the service is free. This gives the agent insight into the async process and expectations, though it doesn't cover all side effects (e.g., confirmation or logging).

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 compact and front-loaded with the metaphor 'The suggestion box' and immediately explains purpose, examples, process, latency, and cost. Every phrase adds value, with no wasted words.

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 request/submission tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, workflow, expected delay, and optional feedback. It doesn't specify the confirmation response, but that's not critical for a queue-based request tool, and the overall context is sufficient for agent decision-making.

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 schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra context by giving examples of valid 'description' content and mentioning the optional contact field for follow-up, but it doesn't introduce new parameter semantics beyond what the schema offers.

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 identifies the tool as a 'suggestion box' for requesting data the system lacks, with concrete examples (pre-2015 filing, uncovered ticker, unsupported chain). This distinguishes it from sibling data-retrieval tools, which serve existing data.

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 conveys when to use the tool: when you need data that isn't already available. It implicitly contrasts with sibling lookup tools and provides context (nightly queue, ~24h availability), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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