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

The annotations already declare this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds essential behavior beyond them: amendments roll up into their base form, unreadable companies return `readable: false` with no forms (meaning 'could not look', not 'files nothing'), and the tool is available on all plans. The `readable: false` semantics are exactly the kind of edge case an agent cannot infer from schema or 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?

It is front-loaded with the core capability, then layers on the amendment rule and the readable:false caveat in dense, purposeful sentences. Every sentence carries an important constraint or clarification, with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-format details needn't be explained, yet the description still clarifies the crucial readable:false case. Combined with the annotation safety profile and full schema coverage, nothing an agent needs to call it 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 description coverage is 100%, with `months` and `tickers` both documented and bounded (1-60 months, up to 200 tickers). The description only restates the default 24 months and the 200-company cap, so it adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema. 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 states a precise verb and resource: which SEC form types each of up to 200 companies filed over the last N months, returned as a count per form in one call. It contrasts implicitly with list_filing_sections and get_sec_filing_links by emphasizing that it returns form-type counts rather than document contents or links. An agent can distinguish it from all siblings without opening a 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?

It gives a clear intended use: to offer only the forms a company set actually files, which tells the agent when to call it. It does not name an explicit alternative (e.g., use list_filing_sections for section text), but the context and the amendment rule make the intended scope unambiguous.

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