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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds clarity about return states (supported, contradicted, insufficient-evidence, etc.) and disclaims financial advice, which goes 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 concise, with two sentences covering purpose, input, output, and limitations. No redundant or filler content.

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?

The description is complete for a verification tool: it states what it verifies, the input requirements, the output evidence, and the possible result states. It also sets boundaries with the disclaimer. This suffices given the annotations and 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?

The schema already describes each parameter. The description adds the relationship that 'ticker or CIK' are alternatives, which is not explicit in the schema. This improves understanding of parameter usage.

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?

Clearly states the tool's function: verifying a financial claim against official SEC filings. The verb 'verify' and resource 'SEC filing' are specific and 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?

Provides a hint on input (ticker or CIK plus claim) and explicitly states what it is not for ('Not a market-data feed or investment advice'), which helps with usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to avoid using it beyond that.

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