Verify an 8-K disclosure claim against SEC Form 8-K

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses the matching tolerance (±3 filing days), the partial-match semantics (same registrant/filing but item/date mismatch), the out_of_scope boundary (no paraphrasing of filing meaning), the out_of_coverage case, and the invariant that every response states the coverage window. It also states Rule-2, that item codes are parsed from the filing, never inferred from prose. This is rich behavioral disclosure beyond the schema.

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 dense but well-organized: it front-loads the core verification purpose, then enumerates return statuses, then states the coverage-window invariant and Rule-2. Every sentence earns its place, though the status enumeration is long and could arguably be tightened. It is appropriately sized for a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations.

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?

For a verification tool with 7 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is quite complete: it explains the return statuses, the matching tolerance, the coverage window, and the item-code parsing rule. It does not explicitly explain how the optional parameters combine (e.g., whether cik/company/accession are alternatives or all required), but the schema's 100% coverage and the description's status semantics make the tool usable. A small gap remains around parameter combination logic.

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 7 parameters. The description adds context about how the parameters are used together (e.g., 'in a timeframe', 'claimed item(s)'), and the ±3 filing-day tolerance for the date parameter, but it does not need to restate each parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds only marginal semantic value.

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 verb ('Check'), a precise resource ('a claim that a registrant ... filed an 8-K carrying specific SEC item code(s) in a timeframe'), and the exact verification target. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on 8-K item-code verification, not activist stakes, insider purchases, or fund positions.

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 explains the verification workflow and enumerates all possible return statuses (confirmed, not_found, partial, out_of_scope, out_of_coverage), which tells an agent what to expect. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the status semantics and Rule-2 boundary provide clear context for when it applies.

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