Fact-check an 8-K disclosure claim against SEC Form 8-K

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description goes well beyond them by enumerating the five possible outcomes (confirmed/not_found/partial/out_of_scope/out_of_coverage) and disclosing the filing-verified caveat that item codes come from SEC controlled vocabulary and are never inferred.

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?

Two dense sentences that front-load the trigger and then the return modes, with no filler. The enumeration of statuses is information-dense but earns its place since no output schema exists.

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 seven-parameter, zero-required verification tool with no output schema, the description supplies exactly what is missing elsewhere: the matching semantics, the full set of return modes, and the scope caveat, leaving no material gap for an agent calling it correctly.

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 all seven parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates the parameter groups ('registrant (cik/company/accession), item code(s) and dates') without adding syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('verify or fact-check that a company filed an 8-K carrying specific SEC item code(s)') and scopes it to the SEC Form 8-K domain, clearly distinguishing it from the sibling verify_13f_change, verify_activist_13d and verify_insider_purchase tools.

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 leading 'Use when...' clause gives a clear trigger condition, and the out_of_scope status explicitly tells the agent what this tool will not cover (claims about a filing's meaning). No sibling alternatives are named, so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives treatment.

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