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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false alerting safe behavior. The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond annotations: exact coverage counts (25,640 filings), regime splitting (ESEF vs UAIFRS), country list, language-edition duplication behavior, grouping into distinct reports, English preference, and inclusion of both filing count and distinct-report count. No contradictions.

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 long but information-dense increases with the tool's complexity; it front-loads the core verb/resource and immediately states the use cases. Every segment (coverage, regimes, language editions, counts) contributes to effective tool selection and invocation. Slightly dense but not 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?

Given the modest schema complexity (two parameters, one required) and rich annotations, the description covers invocation inputs, behavioral quirks, output contents, and scope. It is fully sufficient for an agent to select and call correctly, including handling ambiguous name matches and interpreting counts.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the entity-resolution semantics (substring matching, case-insensitive, response states which filer was chosen) and gives concrete examples of valid inputs. This raises the score above the baseline.

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 lists every annual report one company has published to the XBRL International filings index inform of resolved company plus filing details. It explicitly names example use cases and the exact resource/scope, effectively distinguishing itself from the sibling esef_search_filings and related 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 strong context: it explains what kind of queries it answers, how the entity can be specified (name, LEI, national registration number), and that `country` or `regime` can pin the scope. It does not explicitly name alternatives like esef_search_filings, but the rich context implies when this tool is appropriate.

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