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

The description discloses credit cost differences based on filters, authentication requirements, and that the result is filing data, not investment advice. The readOnlyHint annotation is consistent with the read nature; description adds value beyond annotations by explaining costs and disclaimers.

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 relatively concise for the amount of information conveyed. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds usage details. Every sentence adds value, though could be slightly trimmed without losing meaning.

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 mentions pay components, totals, and filing source URLs, giving a reasonable idea of the response. However, it does not specify the exact structure or field names, which would be helpful for a tool with 7 parameters and no output 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 coverage is 57% (4/7 params described). The description adds context about parameter combinations (e.g., 'Omit all fiscal-year filters to get the latest year'), which helps, but does not detail individual params beyond what schema provides. At moderate coverage, description partially compensates but not fully.

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 it returns named-executive compensation rows for a company by ticker/CIK with fiscal-year filters and pay components. It explicitly excludes pay ratio, pay-versus-performance, and dossiers, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_company_dossier.

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 specific guidance on when to use: latest-FY requests cost 0 credits and no auth, while historical/range/multi-FY require OAuth/X-API-KEY and cost 1 credit. It notes exclusions (pay ratio, etc.), but does not directly compare to siblings for when to choose this over alternatives.

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