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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds value by disclosing the data boundary: factual content only, with no recommendations, price targets, or grey-market premium. This is meaningful context beyond the structured 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?

Two sentences with no wasted words: purpose first, then usage guidance, then a content boundary. Every clause adds relevant information without repeating the title or schema.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully equips an agent: what the tool returns, when to call it, and what it will not contain. No critical omission is apparent.

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 100%, with doc_id fully explained as coming from list_documents or search_filings. The description adds no new parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (a document's table of contents) and the specific contents (section titles, one-line summaries, page ranges). It also distinguishes the tool from read_pages by explicitly positioning it as the precursor to page selection.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: read this before read_pages to avoid guessing which pages to open. The rationale ('annual reports run to 300+ pages') reinforces the intended workflow and names the sibling tool it relates to.

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