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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, but the description adds substantial behavior: value_outlier suppression and flagging logic, which notices are excluded (superseded by Form 144/A), the 200-row pagination cap, and the XML coverage start date. This is far beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then exclusion rules, then flagging rationale, then filter behavior, then row shape and limits. It is long, but nearly every clause carries operational information; only the intermediate flagging-mechanism detail could be trimmed.

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 an output schema exists, the description needn't enumerate return values, yet it does helpfully list row fields, plus pagination, coverage caveats, and filtering edge cases. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description meaningfully augments it – 'whole history' semantics for ticker/seller_cik, the query matching seller or company name, and the market-wide 365-day/default-30-day behavior tied to date params. These add semantics the schema does not.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (Form 144 notices of proposed sales of restricted/control stock by insiders) with a clear scope and ordering ('newest first'). It also distinguishes the concept semantically from completed trades ('a notice is a plan to sell, not a completed sale') which separates it from siblings like get_insider_trades.

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?

Explicitly describes when to use ticker vs seller_cik vs query vs bare date filtering, and what happens in each case (whole history vs market-wide, 365-day cap, default 30 days). It also routes to get_data_coverage for the loaded range, naming an alternative for coverage questions.

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