Fact-check an activist 13D claim against SEC Schedule 13D/13D-A

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

Well beyond the annotations (readOnly/idempotent/openWorld=false, which only confirm a safe read), the description discloses the full outcome taxonomy (confirmed, not_found, partial, out_of_scope, out_of_coverage), that every response states the coverage window checked, and the critical caveat that absence is reported as absence, never guessed. That is exactly the operational honesty an agent needs for a fact-checking 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?

Front-loaded with the usage trigger, then outcome taxonomy, coverage statement, and caveat in tight sentences. The return-value enumeration is denser than strictly needed, but every clause carries signal and nothing is redundant filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain returns — and it does, listing every status and the coverage-window disclosure. Combined with a fully documented 9-parameter schema and safety annotations, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the tolerance semantics (±3 filing days, ±0.5 percentage points, the intent enum, case-insensitive ticker). The description only loosely echoes the claim components, adding no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 (verify/fact-check) plus resource (activist 13D claim against SEC Schedule 13D/13D-A), and the enumerated claim facets (ticker/subject, filer, percent-of-class, intent, timeframe) pin down exactly what is being checked. An agent can distinguish it from verify_13f_change, verify_8k_event, and verify_insider_purchase without opening any schema.

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?

Opens with an explicit when-to-use trigger ('verify or fact-check a claim about an activist stake or 13D filing') and gives an exclusion: passive 13G returns out_of_scope. It does not name the sibling verifier tools (e.g. verify_13f_change) as alternatives, so routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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