Verify an activist 13D claim against SEC Schedule 13D/13D-A

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, and it does so strongly. It reveals the status taxonomy, explains what 'partial' means, promises that every response states the coverage window, and explicitly states the no-estimates rule: absence is reported as absence, never guessed.

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 efficient: each sentence contributes either scope, return behavior, coverage disclosure, or the no-guessing rule. There is no filler, and the most important purpose statement is front-loaded.

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?

The description is richly complete for a verification tool with no output schema: it defines all response statuses and coverage behavior. However, all nine schema parameters are optional and the description never states the minimum required claim information, such as at least one identifying field, nor what happens if the agent calls it with no claim details at all.

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 nine parameters, including tolerances like ±3 filing days and ±0.5 percentage points. The description adds framing about claim components but does not materially extend parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Check a claim ... against the filed Schedule 13D/13D-A record.' It goes beyond a generic verify action by enumerating the exact statuses returned and explicitly excluding passive 13G coverage, which differentiates it from related verification 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 description gives clear context for when the tool applies: activist 13D/13D-A claims only, with out_of_scope as the result for passive 13G filings and out_of_coverage outside the collected window. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as verify_insider_purchase or activist_stakes_recent, so it stops short of a full when-to-use vs. alternatives statement.

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