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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety burden is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: the reply opens with a one-line answer and date, rows link to filings, and data is sourced from SEC EDGAR with weekly freshness.

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?

Front-loaded with the core question, then source and scope in compact lines. The branded sentence "Auditor Watch." and the licensing boilerplate are mild filler but the whole thing stays short.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by sketching the reply shape (one-line answer, dated, rows with filing links, truncation handled in schema). Minimum viable plus for a single-parameter read tool; only the lack of explicit result coverage limits it.

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% and the single `limit` parameter already documents default 50, ceiling 200, and truncation behavior. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics, so baseline 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?

Names a specific verb and resource — public companies that changed auditors or declared non-reliance — and anchors it to a concrete data source (SEC 8-K Items 4.01 and 4.02). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like get_mergers or get_breaches without opening any 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?

The framing question plus "this week" implies the use case and time window, but no alternatives or exclusions are named despite a large sibling set. The agent must infer that this is the auditor-change tool and nothing else.

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