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

Annotations already declare it read-only, idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds useful detail about what each result contains, including which formats exist. It says a Subscription-Key is 'required via _apiKey', but the schema says the key is optional and Pipeworx supplies one, which leaves auth behavior confusing.

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 text is front-loaded with what is returned, followed by filtering, auth and an example. It is fairly dense but efficient, and the example is a useful addition.

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?

With no output schema, the description sketches the returned fields reasonably well. It does not explain truncation when the day's filings exceed the limit, the lack of pagination, or behavior on non-business days. The key requirement is also left inconsistent.

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 coverage is 100%, with formats, ranges and examples documented. The description adds a concrete invocation example and summarizes the filter options. Its claim that _apiKey is required conflicts with the schema text calling it optional, so it subtracts clarity as well as adding it.

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?

It clearly states that the tool lists every EDINET disclosure filed on one day. It names example document types and the returned fields: filer, document type, period, and available formats. The one-day scope sets it apart in practice, but it never mentions the siblings edinet_company_filings or edinet_search_filers.

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 one-day scope and the optional filer or document-type filtering imply when to use it. It gives no explicit guidance to prefer edinet_company_filings when browsing one company's history across dates. It also doesn't point to edinet_search_filers for finding an edinet_code.

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