Compensation filings

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating safe read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral info (e.g., pagination, rate limits). With annotations carrying the burden, a score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not contradict but offers no extra context.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key information. No filler or repetition. Efficiently conveys the tool's purpose.

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?

Description is adequate given the 100% schema coverage and annotations. However, lack of output schema and any explanation of return values or usage patterns (e.g., how to iterate) leaves some gaps. The description could mention that it returns filing data or how pagination works.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all four parameters (ticker, cursor, limit, max_items). The description does not add any parameter-level details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is suitable.

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?

Description clearly states 'DEF 14A proxy/compensation filings,' indicating the tool retrieves compensation-related filings. It distinguishes from siblings like stocks_filings (general filings) and stocks_earnings (earnings data) by specifying the type of filing. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get,' which would strengthen clarity.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as stocks_filings or stocks_sections. The description does not mention scenarios or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer from the name and description alone.

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