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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the asynchronous behavior (nightly queue, ~24h availability) and that it's free. This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent a good sense of expectations, though it doesn't mention any confirmation or feedback mechanism.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and examples. The second sentence covers behavior, timing, and a parameter use case. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, process, timing, and cost. It doesn't explicitly mention how to use the sibling find_data for existing data, but the context is sufficient. A 5 would require an explicit exclusion, but the tool is well-scoped.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the optional contact is for follow-up ('Include contact if you want to hear back'), which nuances the contact parameter beyond the schema. It also re-emphasizes the 'description' field with examples, though these are already in the schema.

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's purpose: 'ask for data we don't have' with specific examples (pre-2015 filing, uncovered ticker, unsupported chain). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_data, which presumably retrieves existing data, making the intent 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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool: when data is missing ('data we don't have') and describes the process (nightly ingestion queue, ~24h turnaround). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, which would make it a 5.

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