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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds that results are severity-sorted and auto-classified, and that it's faster/more structured than EDGAR. This adds useful behavioral context without contradicting annotations.

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?

Three concise sentences that front-load the key directive, describe the action, and give usage examples. No wasted words; all content 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?

For a simple read-only tool with well-documented schema and annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and behavior. It doesn't describe return value format, but no output schema exists and the description implies a list; this is a minor gap.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters with clear details like look-back window and max results. The tool description itself does not add much beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 it returns recent 8-K filings for a ticker, with auto-classification and severity sorting. It distinguishes itself from web search and EDGAR raw listings, and the 'recent' scope and severity ordering differentiate it from sibling tools like sec_8k_today and sec_8k_by_item.

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?

It explicitly says to prefer over web search for 'what just happened' queries and provides concrete example questions. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use sec_8k_today or sec_8k_by_item instead, so it lacks explicit exclusion of sibling alternatives.

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