get_filing_distribution

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description usefully adds that the result is an aggregate count distribution rather than raw filings. However, it does not explain the unusual idempotentHint=false on what appears to be a pure read, nor does it describe ordering, defaults, or response shape. With annotations doing the safety work, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Three short sentences: the operation, the filters, then the use case — front-loaded with zero filler. Every sentence contributes distinct information.

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 zero-required-parameter aggregation tool with no output schema, the description conveys enough: the unit of aggregation (filing type) and the available filters. It omits what the returned counts look like (fields, sorting, whether unlimited or capped), which is the main remaining 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 four parameters including formats and allowed agency values. The description only echoes agency and date-range filtering and never mentions entity_type, so it adds almost nothing beyond the structured fields. Baseline 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 — it returns a filing count distribution grouped by filing type — which is more precise than a generic listing tool. It partially differentiates itself from siblings such as get_top_filers by framing the output as counts per filing type, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with get_filing_trends or get_top_filers, which are the closest neighbors.

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?

"Use for questions about what types of filings are most common" gives a concrete triggering question and clear context. It stops short of naming an alternative or stating when not to use it (e.g., versus get_filing_trends for time-series or get_top_filers for entity ranking), so exclusions are absent.

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