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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it explains the two data sources (XBRL-tagged vs narrative extraction with verbatim quotes), clarifies that a 'miss is never a statement of no risk,' and describes the trend functionality with maxFilings. This adds significant context that is not captured in the readOnlyHint or destructiveHint annotations.

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 concise at roughly 4 sentences, with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then efficiently covers data sources, interpretation of results, and parameter guidance. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose without redundancy.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description provides a comprehensive picture of what the tool returns: example of the disclosure, fields included (basis, customer count, percentage, period, source filing), and the difference between XBRL and narrative extraction. It also notes the important caveat about misses and the trend option. This is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Both parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining the use case for maxFilings (>1 shows concentration trend), which goes beyond the schema's description of 'how many of the newest disclosing filings to return.' This extra context helps the agent decide when to adjust the parameter.

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 states the tool retrieves a company's customer-concentration risk disclosure, specifying the types of data returned (percentage, basis, customer count, period, source filing). It distinguishes from siblings like GetFinancialFact by focusing on this specific risk and mentioning examples (NVDA, AAPL) and the use of XBRL vs narrative extraction.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to get customer concentration risk) and gives explicit guidance on the maxFilings parameter ('Pass maxFilings > 1 to also see earlier filings' disclosures'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternative tools for related queries, such as GetFinancialFact for general financial data.

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