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

Beyond the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral traits: selective coverage, whitespace normalization in quotes, and lack of automatic reconciliation of financial histories. These are exactly the kinds of caveats an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the core capability and return contents, the second warns about selective coverage, and the third clarifies data normalization caveats. It is dense but not bloated, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what is returned, the coverage limitations, and key interpretation caveats. A minor gap is that it does not describe the exact response structure, but the simple nature of the call and the rich caveats keep this acceptable.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single required parameter 'ticker.' The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but none is needed because the schema fully documents the parameter. This meets the baseline for a fully schema-documented parameter.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Read' and the resource: short, verified primary-source passages for reviewed company events. It also lists the included metadata (source URLs, section labels, dates, hashes, predecessor links), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling research or fundamentals tools.

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 gives important usage context: coverage is selective, and absence of passages means 'unreviewed,' not 'no events.' This helps an agent avoid misinterpreting empty results. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for a single-parameter evidence-retrieval tool.

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