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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the default 5-year filing window, the fact that full-text search finds the filing wherever it sits, and the important caveat that a Form D is a self-reported notice rather than a verified closed round.

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?

It is a single front-loaded paragraph that leads with purpose and ends with the reliability caveat. The long enumeration of reported fields is informative but slightly bloats the middle; still, every clause carries meaning and nothing is 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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, yet the description still summarizes the key reported fields. Annotations cover the safety profile and the description adds the temporal default plus the self-reported-data caveat, leaving nothing an agent needs to call this correctly.

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 query, limit, since, and until. The description only reinforces query semantics with example values and restates the 5-year default already in the schema, adding marginal value — baseline 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 opens with a precise verb+resource ("Look up a named company's or fund's SEC Form D filing by the issuer's name") and enumerates exactly what is returned. It distinguishes itself functionally from detail/history tools by emphasizing name-based lookup, but never names a sibling (e.g., form_d_offering_detail or form_d_related_person_search) to route the agent 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?

It gives concrete input guidance ("Pass the name, e.g. 'YCA26, L.P.'") and scope (full-text over every Form D, default last 5 years, also finds filings naming an executive or fund), which implies usage. However, it never states when to prefer this over form_d_offering_detail, form_d_issuer_history, or form_d_related_person_search, so the when-not/alternatives dimension is missing.

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