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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), but the description adds nothing beyond that: it does not explain what a 'frame' result contains, whether periods must match a specific format, or what the cross-company aggregation semantics are. For a niche SEC concept like frames, this is a significant gap.

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 terse fragment, so it wastes no words, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. Nothing is front-loaded because there is nothing to front-load.

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 values need not be described, but for a 5-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and a jargon-laden purpose, the definition is completely inadequate. An agent cannot confidently construct a valid call from this text alone.

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?

All five parameters (concept, period, unit, taxonomy, limit) have 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden — and it says nothing about any of them. The meanings of 'concept' (US-GAAP tag?), 'period' (CY2023Q1? instant/date?), and 'taxonomy' are entirely unstated.

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 restates the tool name (sec_frames) as 'SEC EDGAR cross-company XBRL frame' with no verb and no explanation of what a 'frame' is or what the tool returns. It conveys the domain (SEC EDGAR XBRL) but does not distinguish it from siblings like sec_financials, sec_filing, or sec_company_intelligence.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling (sec_financials, sec_filing, sec_full_text_search) to prefer for a given question. An agent has no basis to route between sec_frames and the other SEC tools.

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