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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), but the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: entitlement-gated returns (first 5 rows full, rest only as locked.count/locked.by_type), never-returned contact values and decision-maker names, and the `entitlement`/`locked` output fields. It also clarifies that a refreshed number surfaces as numbers_updated rather than as a change — a semantic caveat the annotations cannot convey.

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 purpose and return-shape content is front-loaded and dense with useful specifics, but the ACCESS paragraph plus the promotional plan link ('DFX Intelligence, 7 days free at...') is marketing filler that dilutes an otherwise efficient description.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of describing returns: comparison verdict, added/removed/rewritten counts, clipped sentences, both filings cited, plus entitlement/locked metadata. Combined with the explicit hand-off to search_documents, an agent has enough to call and interpret it, though the exact response envelope is still only loosely specified.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds some meaning for `term` ('software, tariffs, AI... or any word') and implies recency via 'latest 10-K or 10-Q', but does not explain section, filed_from, or changed_only behavior beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 precise verb+resource: every active BDC whose latest 10-K/10-Q names a term, compared sentence-by-sentence against the prior filing, with added/removed/rewritten sentence counts. It also explicitly differentiates from the sibling search_documents ('For the passages themselves use search_documents'), so an agent can distinguish it without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use framing ('The answer to "which BDCs added language about software risk this quarter"') and routes passage retrieval to search_documents. It lacks explicit when-NOT-to-use conditions beyond that single alternative, so it falls just short of a 5.

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