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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict these. The description adds valuable behavioral context: results are sorted by recency, a note flags when more results exist than returned, and crucial caveats that proposals may never execute and completed sales may appear later on Form 4/5. This goes beyond the annotation coverage.

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 comprehensive yet efficiently structured, starting with the core purpose, then detailing notice contents, then ordering and scoping advice, and finally an important execution caveat. Every sentence contributes information, with no repetition or filler. It is front-loaded with the primary function.

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 lacking an output schema, the description thoroughly explains what each notice contains (seller, relationship, shares, market value, sale date, broker, remarks, 10b5-1 plans), result ordering, the existence flag for more results, and the caveat that proposals may not execute. This gives an agent enough context to correctly interpret the response and decide when to use the tool, completing the picture for a read-only data fetch.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for all four parameters with clear descriptions (ticker, toDate, fromDate, maxResults). The description adds rationale for using date parameters (avoid flooding) but does not introduce new parameter semantics beyond what the schema specifies. Per the baseline rule, a score of 3 is appropriate when schema covers parameters.

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 proposed insider sales from SEC Form 144 notices, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('proposed insider sales'), and details the content of each notice. It stands apart from siblings like GetInsiderTransactions or GetInsiderOwnership by focusing on Form 144 proposals, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 practical guidance on when to use fromDate/toDate, noting that heavy 10b5-1 filers can flood the recency window, and explains results are ordered most-recent-first with a flag for additional data. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for different use cases, but the context implies this is for proposed sales rather than completed transactions.

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