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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose important context—paid x402 access, $0.01 per call in USDC on Base, and the payment parameter location—but it does not state that the operation is read-only or describe what the response contains.

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?

The description front-loads the data-domain context, but it then piles several capabilities, a price, and an HTTP endpoint into a dense block. It is not excessively long, but some phrasing serves service marketing rather than tool selection.

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?

Given four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should clarify what a call returns and how q, tag, limit, and period interact. Instead it broadly advertises three capabilities, leaving the agent unsure whether a single call returns filings, financials, search results, or all of them.

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%, so the schema already explains q, tag, limit, and period. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 lists several capabilities ('company profile plus recent filings', 'XBRL financial history', 'full-text search') but does not explain what 'resolve' itself does or how it differs from the sibling tools edgar__company, edgar__financials, and edgar__search. An agent can infer it is an EDGAR data endpoint, but cannot easily tell which specific operation this tool performs.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the three similarly named EDGAR siblings. It only states payment and HTTP details, leaving the selection decision entirely to the agent's guesswork.

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