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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds value by disclosing it uses official SEC EDGAR full-text search, is free, and includes a per-call cost ($0.02). It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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 concise sentences plus pricing information. It front-loads the core purpose, sources, and outputs, with no wasted words. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (company, filing date, document URL). It covers all four parameters via schema descriptions and contextualizes the queries. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no mention of pagination or empty result behavior), but the tool is simple enough that this is sufficient.

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%, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. It adds meaning by linking the 'queries' parameter to company names or sector keywords and clarifying outputs (company, filing date, document URL) in the absence of an output schema. This contextualizes the parameters without redundancy.

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 tracks SEC Form D filings by company name or sector keyword. It specifies the data source (SEC EDGAR), the outputs (company, filing date, document URL), and distinguishes itself from a sibling like 'funding-alert' by focusing on regulatory filings rather than general funding news.

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 provides context on when to use this tool (tracking recent private capital raises via Form D) and highlights its free, no-login nature. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'funding-alert' or state when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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