Get an ECFS download plan for a filings query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the result is date_bucket buckets each containing a suggested_api_call that is 'safe to run' and explains the problem it solves (duplicate/missing filings in large result sets). It doesn't cover all possible edge cases (e.g., rate limits, error handling), but gives solid behavioral context for a planning tool.

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 two sentences that pack purpose, usage, and outcome efficiently. It front-loads the core purpose and then explains when to use and why, with no redundant phrases or fluff.

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 the 7 fully-documented parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently outlines what the tool returns (buckets with suggested_api_call) and when to use it. It lacks details on potential errors or pagination behavior beyond the conceptual, but it is complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 schema has 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by noting that this tool shares the same filters as ecfs_search_filings, implying parameter semantics are identical to that sibling, which is useful context beyond the individual field descriptions. However, it does not elaborate on any parameter details beyond the schema's own documentation.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('download plan for a filings search'), and explicitly contrasts it with the sibling ecfs_search_filings, distinguishing it as returning date-bucketed suggested API calls instead of a page of results. This makes its purpose unmistakable.

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 names when to use this tool ('before ecfs_search_filings for dockets with thousands of filings') and why (avoiding duplicate/missing filings from plain offset/limit paging), providing both positive and negative guidance by implication. It also names the alternative tool.

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