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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: SEC EDGAR provenance, filing links for every row, one-line answer plus date, and licensing.

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 short and front-loads the core question it answers. It includes a redundant 'Breach Clock' fragment and some terse phrases, but most content earns its place by clarifying source, output shape, and licensing.

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?

For a simple one-parameter, read-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description explains the answer subject, source, row links, and licensing. It is not fully complete because it omits result ordering, time-window scope, and sibling differentiation.

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?

There is only one optional limit parameter, and its schema description is fully detailed, including default, ceiling, truncation metadata, and a full-board link. The tool description does not add parameter-specific guidance beyond the schema, so the high schema coverage sets the baseline at 3.

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 resource and scope: public-company cybersecurity incidents disclosed under SEC 8-K Item 1.05, sourced from EDGAR. It is more specific than a generic data-retrieval tool, but it does not distinguish itself from the closely related sibling get_cyber_disclosures.

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 question-led phrasing implies usage for finding companies that disclosed cyber incidents to the SEC. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or comparison to alternatives such as get_cyber_disclosures.

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