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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does most of the work: it discloses the price (free via x402), the exact return shape (changed_count, next_cursor, as_of only — no rows), and a recommended polling cadence. It stops short of stating rate limits or error behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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-loads the essential fact ('Free: count of filings...') and packs pricing, return shape, and polling policy into a tight block. The trailing HTTP/doc bracket is metadata rather than prose but is compact and standard for this tool family.

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 correctly compensates by naming the returned fields (changed_count, next_cursor, as_of) and the fact that no rows are returned. Combined with cost and cadence guidance, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only edge-case/error behavior is unaddressed.

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 50%; the `since` cursor is already documented in the schema (including the bootstrap-at-now behavior) and the `form` enum is self-describing. The description references 'your cursor' and 'next_cursor' but adds little parameter meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource — a count of filings of the watched form changed since the cursor — and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling gov_edgar-watch_delta by framing itself as the free probe that returns no rows. An agent can tell the two apart without opening 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?

Gives an explicit operational policy: poll hourly for $0 and only call the paid delta when changed_count > 0. It names the alternative (the paid delta) and the exact condition that selects it, leaving nothing to inference.

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