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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds substantive behavioral detail: the two-stage matching algorithm (strict whole-word first, then broaden), punctuation and word-boundary rules, alias resolution, and return-field/ordering specifics. This goes well beyond the structured 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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by two sentences of high-value behavioral nuance. No fluff, every sentence earns its place.

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 lists the return fields (CIK, role, latest filing company, location) and ordering. Pagination and clamping behavior are covered in the input schema, so the description complements structured data without needing to repeat it. The tool is a read-only search, so no mutation warnings are required.

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 descriptions cover all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining how the 'query' parameter is interpreted (whole-word matching, alias resolution), which adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's simple 'Search query for insider name'.

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 states a specific action ('Search'), a defined resource ('tracked SEC corporate-insider set'), and a clear scope ('directors, officers, 10% owners') by name. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve insider transactions or ownership, and from other search tools.

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 gives clear context: this tool is for searching insiders by name and returns identity details. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives (e.g., 'for transactions use GetInsiderTransactions'), but the intended use case is unambiguous, and the absence of exclusions is acceptable.

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