get_amendments

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only 'per-concept diffs when available,' a useful but thin note about return content, and says nothing about auth, limits, or data freshness. The output schema carries the return contract, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 core statement is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by three short trigger examples. Slightly verbose with the repeated question-form quotes, but every line is scannable and none is wasted.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety, most of the calling contract is complete. The remaining gap is routing: in a 22-tool sibling set dominated by amendment/restatement tools, the description never positions this tool relative to get_amendment_diff or get_silent_restatements.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. 'For an entity' maps to the required entity_id and 'FY20xx 10-K/A' hints at the optional fiscal_year filter, but neither format nor the behavior when fiscal_year is omitted (all years vs. latest) is explained, so compensation is only partial.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: surfacing 10-K/A restatements for an entity, with a parenthetical noting per-concept diffs. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like get_amendment_diff, get_silent_restatements, or get_silent_restatement_diff, leaving the agent to guess which amendment tool to call.

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?

Concrete trigger phrases ('has X amended any filing?', 'restatements?', 'what changed in the FY20xx 10-K/A?') give clear context for when to reach for this tool. It stops short of exclusions or naming alternatives, so an agent still cannot tell when to prefer get_amendment_diff over this one.

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