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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. It adds useful context about the 'forensically covered ticker' constraint and the verbatim SEC quote substantiation, which informs the agent about data quality and scope.

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?

Single, well-structured sentence that packs the essential purpose and distinguishing detail. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Description is adequate for a simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage and an output schema. It could mention the 'newest first' ordering or the ticker requirement, but those are in the schema, so not required.

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% for both parameters (limit and ticker), so the schema already documents them. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is fine.

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 uses a specific verb ('Corporate events') with resource ('splits, offerings, redomestications') and adds a distinguishing feature (verbatim SEC quote). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like news, sec_filings, and fundamentals.

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?

The description implies use when needing corporate events with SEC substantiation, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. No exclusions or comparative guidance against sibling tools.

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