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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that requests feed a nightly ingestion queue, that filings are typically available within ~24 hours, that contact is optional for follow-up, and that the service is free. This provides useful operational context beyond the bare function, though it doesn't cover every possible edge case (e.g., request limits, confirmation behavior).

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 two sentences packed with purpose, examples, process, timing, and cost. Every word earns its place, and the friendly tone ('suggestion box', 'Free.') adds personality without bloat.

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, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is complete: it covers use cases, expected behavior, and constraints. It could mention response format or request limits, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity, making this above the minimum viable.

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 coverage is 100% (all three parameters have descriptions and examples), so the baseline is 3 even without additional info. The description adds only a small hint about contact being optional for hearing back, which slightly reinforces the 'contact' parameter but doesn't materially deepen understanding of the parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('ask for') and resource ('data we don't have'), with concrete examples ('pre-2015 filing, an uncovered ticker, an unsupported chain') that make the purpose unmistakable. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_data by framing itself as a 'suggestion box' for missing 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 clearly implies when to use: when data is not currently available, as shown by 'data we don't have' and the explicit examples. It also sets expectations via the nightly ingestion queue and ~24h turnaround. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or say 'use find_data for existing data', so it falls short of a full 5.

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