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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real operational context beyond that: the aggregation scans issuers and compares each against its own filing history, and is capped at 1500 issuers per call.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler; the defining condition (different firm vs prior filing, recent window) is front-loaded. Slightly packed but every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains what the result set represents (issuer-level auditor switches) and the scan methodology. It does not enumerate returned fields, but the core semantics an agent needs to call it correctly are present.

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 schema already documents days (default 90) and limit (1-200, default 50). The description restates 'last N days' but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so this sits at 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?

States a specific verb+resource: issuers whose most recent Form AP filing names a different audit firm than the prior one, over the last N days. The phrase 'no upstream PCAOB page offers directly' differentiates it from upstream sources, but it never names sibling tools like pcaob_auditor_of or pcaob_firm_engagements.

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 'who switched auditors recently' framing implies when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to sibling PCAOB tools for related lookups. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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