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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context: it's a full-text search over EDGAR, sourced from EFTS, and costs $0.10 per call. It doesn't mention pagination or result limits, but the added context is meaningful beyond the annotations.

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 three short sentences: a usage trigger, the core return behavior, and source/cost. It's front-loaded and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value.

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?

With 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description needs to carry significant weight. It fails to mention min_offering_usd, doesn't describe the return structure, and gives no hints about pagination or result limits. An agent would have gaps when invoking this tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions optional state and SIC filters and implies a recent window for days_back, but it completely omits min_offering_usd and provides no format guidance for the filters. The compensation is only partial.

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 returns Form D filings from EDGAR full-text search and frames it for tracking new private placement activity. This distinguishes it from sibling SEC-related tools like get_sec_beneficial_ownership and get_sec_insider_trading without needing to open the schema.

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 explicitly provides a usage trigger: 'Use when tracking new private placement activity via SEC Form D filings in a recent window.' This gives clear context for when to select this tool. It doesn't list alternatives or exclusions, but the scenario is specific enough that an agent can route correctly.

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