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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does convey its main query orientations. However, it does not disclose defaults, how to explicitly activate the largest-raises mode, whether pooled funds are included by default, or what the response shape will be.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler: the resource and its fields come first, then the three usage modes are listed efficiently. Every clause adds useful information.

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 four-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives a useful overview but is not fully self-contained. An agent still has to infer how to invoke the largest-raises mode, the default time window or sort behavior, and whether funds are included without inspecting the schema.

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 only 25%, so the description partially compensates by implying that cik identifies an issuer, days defines a window, and sort=recent requests recent filings. It does not explicitly describe the funds parameter, but the schema already provides that description, so parameter meaning is only partially clarified.

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 identifies the resource (Form D private placement notices) and the key data it exposes: issuer, amounts, investors, and pooled fund status. It also lists the main query modes, which distinguishes it from the financial-data siblings, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'search'.

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 concrete usage contexts: largest raises in a window, one issuer by CIK, and most recent filings, which map naturally to the days, cik, and sort parameters. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, but no sibling tool is close enough to create real ambiguity.

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