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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does clarify that these are pre-trade planned-sale notices and enumerates the data fields returned. However, it does not mention how the symbol/days parameters scope the results, data freshness, or that this is a read-only listing, leaving some behavior implicit.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the filing type and packs the key attributes into a parenthetical; no filler or redundant restatement of the title. It is concise and scannable.

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 two-parameter tool this is close, but it lacks any explanation of the `days` filter and gives no routing cues against insider_trades/insider_clusters. With no output schema or annotations, the description alone does not fully cover the details an agent needs to pick and invoke it correctly.

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 50%: `symbol` has an inline description, but `days` has only numeric bounds and no meaning, and the tool description never explains what `days` controls (e.g., lookback window). The description's field list adds no parameter-level guidance, so it does not compensate for the gap.

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 names a specific SEC filing type (Form 144) and characterizes it as an affiliate's planned sale of restricted/control stock, listing the key fields (seller, shares, value, planned date). It also notes 'filed before the trade,' which distinguishes it from executed insider-trade tools such as insider_trades. No verb like 'list' appears, but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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 conveys the domain (planned affiliate sales) but never states when to prefer this tool over siblings such as insider_trades or insider_clusters, and offers no explicit exclusions or alternate routing. The intended use is only implied by the filing-type definition.

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