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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful traits of scope (amendments only) and ordering (reverse chronological), but says nothing about pagination, result format, or how many results to expect.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the resource and the defining examples. No wasted words 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?

For a simple read-only list tool with full parameter coverage and safety annotations, the essentials are present. However, it omits any hint about pagination or what a returned item contains, which would help an agent chain into get_filing_documents or get_filing_text.

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 both ticker and limit are already documented with defaults and bounds. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource (amended filings) and qualifies it with concrete form examples (/A forms: 10-K/A, 10-Q/A, 8-K/A). This clearly separates it from generic siblings like list_filings or search_filings, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no comparison against list_filings, search_filings, or get_filing_documents. The scope is implied by the word 'amended', but an agent must infer that this is the amendment-specific counterpart to list_filings.

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