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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral context: shares_to_sell and aggregate_market_value are as-filed intentions, not executed trades; matching Form 4 sales typically follow a day later; event_revision is always null; data is delayed 24 hours and only recent filings are returned. This goes well beyond what annotations convey.

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 is concise and front-loaded, starting with a clear purpose sentence. Every subsequent sentence adds meaningful behavioral or temporal context without redundancy, and the overall length is appropriate.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, required input, temporal delays, filing semantics, and known quirks (event_revision null). Since an output schema exists, return value details are not needed. This is complete for a read-only, single-company lookup tool.

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?

The input schema already fully documents both parameters (ticker and limit) with descriptions and defaults, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning specifically about the parameter semantics, though it clarifies the output field semantics (shares_to_sell, aggregate_market_value).

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 clearly states the tool retrieves Form 144 notices of proposed insider sales for a single company, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Form 144 notices'). It also notes ticker is required, which differentiates it from broader sibling tools like search_insider_events.

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 explicitly states it is for one company and that ticker is required, providing clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the 'one company' constraint and focus on Form 144 imply appropriate usage.

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