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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that requests feed a nightly ingestion queue, that filings are typically available in ~24h, that including contact enables follow-up, and that the service is free. This is strong behavioral context, though it doesn't cover potential limitations like whether all requests get fulfilled.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences that capture the core purpose, give concrete examples, explain the queue behavior and latency, note the optional contact field, and state it's free. Every clause earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.

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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, what to expect in terms of follow-up, and that it's free. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly alongside sibling tools.

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%, with each parameter having a description and example. The tool description adds context about the nature of acceptable requests (pre-2015 filings, uncovered tickers, etc.) but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the parameters themselves, keeping the score at baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('ask for data we don't have') and clearly distinguishes this from sibling lookup/screening tools by framing it as a 'suggestion box' for requesting unavailable data. It lists concrete examples (pre-2015 filing, uncovered ticker, unsupported chain) that make the purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when data is missing from the existing coverage, as shown by examples and 'data we don't have.' It does not explicitly name alternatives like find_data for existing data, but the phrasing plus sibling list makes the boundary clear enough.

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