Recent activist stakes (SEC Schedule 13D)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses several behavioral traits: newest-first ordering with intent-strength tiebreaker, default limit of 25, pagination via offset, total_matched count reporting, and the data-quality rule that filings without a source filing_url are dropped. This is strong behavioral disclosure for a read-only query 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?

Four sentences, all informative, with the core purpose front-loaded and no redundant filler. Every sentence earns its place by adding sorting, pagination, filtering, or data-quality context.

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 tool's moderate complexity, full parameter schema coverage, and absence of an output schema, the description is complete enough to invoke correctly. It covers ordering, default limit, pagination, all optional filters, the count field, and the source-link requirement, leaving no critical operational gap.

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 all five parameters. The description adds little beyond restating limit/offset/total_matched behavior already present in the schema, so it does not significantly enhance parameter-level understanding.

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 states a specific resource ('Recent activist Schedule 13D / 13D-A filings on US-listed companies') and a clear operation ('Returns the newest 25 by default'), with distinctive sorting by stated-intent strength. This makes the tool clearly distinguishable from siblings like verify_activist_13d and insider_signals_today.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you need recent activist Schedule 13D/13D-A filings, with optional filtering by ticker, percent, and days. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous enough to infer appropriate use.

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