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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does: discloses the return shape (changed_count, next_cursor, as_of only, no rows), the pricing model (free via x402), auth/cost mechanics, and the recommended polling cadence. Rich behavioral disclosure for a read-only probe.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and scope in the first sentence, followed by the return contract and the polling strategy. The bracketed HTTP/price/docs line is useful routing metadata rather than filler; slight redundancy in repeating 'free' but overall tight.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description explicitly enumerates the returned fields and states that no rows are returned, so the agent knows exactly what to expect. Combined with cost, cadence, and endpoint docs, nothing needed to invoke correctly is missing.

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% and already documents `since` as an opaque cursor with bootstrap semantics. The description reinforces this by describing the return of next_cursor and the free/paid split, giving the agent enough to chain calls, though it adds little syntax beyond what the schema states.

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 resource (8-K filings changed since cursor) and verb (count), and explicitly positions itself against its sibling gov_edgar-events_delta as the 'free polling probe.' An agent can distinguish it from the paid delta without reading either schema.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the workflow: poll hourly for $0 and only call the paid delta when changed_count > 0. Names the alternative (paid delta) and the exact condition that selects it. Nothing is left to inference.

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