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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and idempotency profile is covered. The description adds ordering ('oldest first') and the scoping constraint (one period of one measure), which is useful, but says nothing about result size or pagination.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource up front and the framing clause after the colon. No padding and nothing redundant.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile while the schema fully documents parameters. The only gap is routing guidance relative to the overlapping siblings, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 100%, so all five parameters are already documented, including unit defaults and the start/end quarter-vs-YTD distinction. The description only loosely maps 'one period of one measure' to the end/concept pair and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb (List), resource (every filing), and scope (one period of one measure, oldest first), framing the result as a revision history. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like restatements or history, which an agent might reasonably reach for instead.

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 phrase 'the revision history behind a number' implies the use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative such as restatements or history. The agent must infer selection from the description alone.

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