get_filing_trends

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description correctly implies a read operation. The description adds that it returns trends and top movers but does not detail behavior like aggregation methods, pagination, or rate limits. 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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary function, and contains no redundant or extraneous information. Each sentence serves a clear purpose.

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 tool has 6 parameters and no output schema. The description explains what the tool returns (trends and optional top movers) but lacks details on the output structure (e.g., list of periods, counts). This is a gap for an agent to fully understand the response format.

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 each parameter. The description adds context about optional top movers but does not explain parameter specifics beyond the schema. Therefore, it adds minimal value, matching the baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states that the tool retrieves filing volume trends over time periods, with optional parameters for top movers. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_filing_detail (specific filing) and get_filing_distribution (filing distribution), making its purpose specific and distinct.

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 explicitly advises using the tool for questions about growth, trends, emerging players, or year-over-year comparisons. However, it does not provide exclusions or mention alternative tools for different queries, such as get_filing_distribution for distribution queries.

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