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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source (SEC 8-K filings), generation model (Claude Haiku), timing (within minutes of EDGAR publication), and the structure of each signal. It also explains the default time window and how to modify it via hours. It doesn't reveal potential limitations like rate limits or pagination, but it provides meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple verb.

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 about 60 words across four sentences. It front-loads the purpose, then adds signal contents, use case, and time-window guidance. No fluff; each sentence serves a purpose.

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?

The tool is simple (2 optional params, no output schema). The description covers the main purpose, output shape, use case, and parameter adjustment. It could explicitly mention 'limit' behavior, but overall it's sufficient for an agent to invoke 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?

The schema has no descriptions, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'hours' parameter: 'Default window is 30 days; set hours=24 for today only.' However, it does not explicitly explain the 'limit' parameter, though 'limit' suggests a cap on returned signals. Given 0% schema coverage, the description partially mitigates but leaves limit undefined.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Get real-time AI sentiment signals derived from SEC 8-K filings.' It further details the signal contents (ticker, classification, confidence score, summary, factors), distinguishing it from sibling tools about raw filings or earnings. This isn't a tautology and provides clear differentiation.

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 explicitly says when to use: 'Use this when asked which companies have recently filed bullish or bearish 8-Ks, or to screen for sentiment shifts across the S&P 500.' It also gives usage context for the hours parameter ('Default window is 30 days; set hours=24 for today only'). However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so 4.

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