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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds information the annotations cannot: the exact field set returned (accession, CIK, ticker, filing date, sentiment_local, lm_pos/lm_neg), the -1..+1 scale, and the auth/billing model (X-ORKID-API-Key or $0.01 USDC via x402).

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with what the tool computes before listing outputs, params and pricing. Every clause carries information; the only slight cost is the run-on field/param enumeration, which is still scannable.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return fields and scale, which is exactly what an agent needs to decide to call it. Gaps are minor: no note on row ordering or pagination, and no statement about what happens when ticker/date range are omitted despite zero required parameters.

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 documents every parameter including defaults and the 500 cap. The description's 'Params: ticker, start/end, limit (default 100, max 500)' largely restates the schema, adding only the panel name mapping to filing_sentiment.

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 names a specific verb+resource: Loughran-McDonald sentiment scored over EDGAR 10-K/10-Q narrative text, returning the filing_sentiment panel. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sv_filings by emphasizing scored sentiment rather than raw filings, but never names that sibling, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied by what the tool returns; there is no explicit 'use this when…' or 'use sv_filings instead for raw text' guidance. The only routing signal is the panel parameter naming filing_sentiment as the sole available panel, which tells an agent there is nothing to choose but not when this tool beats its siblings.

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