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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job. It discloses the key behavioral trait: 'A notice is an INTENT — it may be executed smaller, later, or not at all, so never treat notified value as realised selling.' This adds crucial context beyond a simple 'gets Form 144 data' statement.

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 front-loaded with a punchy summary ('INSIDER INTENT-TO-SELL NOTICES — supply before it hits the tape'), then explains the Form 144 context, when to use it, and a critical caveat. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff.

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 provides a thorough explanation of the data returned (who, shares, broker, market value, acquisition method) and the intent-versus-execution nuance, which is essential for correct interpretation. However, the lack of parameter semantics (start/end/limit) leaves a gap in understanding how to scope the query, preventing a perfect score.

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 only 25% (only ticker has a description). The description does not explain the start, end, or limit parameters at all, and doesn't even mention that the tool takes a ticker. The agent is left to guess how to filter by date or control result count, with no compensatory information in the description.

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 tool as providing 'INSIDER INTENT-TO-SELL NOTICES' for Form 144 filings, with a specific focus on forward-looking intent rather than completed trades. It distinguishes itself from Form-4 flow, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Call it to see overhang building ahead of the completed sales, which only show up later in the Form-4 flow.' It also cautions against treating intent as realised selling, providing a clear alternative context (Form-4 flow for completed sales).

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