get_top_filers

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

Annotations include `readOnlyHint: true`, confirming no destructive behavior. The description adds that results are ranked by filing count and filters by agency/date range, which goes beyond the annotation. No contradictions.

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 sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose and ranking; the second provides filtering context and usage examples. Highly efficient.

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 retrieval tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the purpose, filtering, and typical use cases. It is complete given the complexity level.

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?

All 5 parameters are described in the input schema with 100% coverage. The description mentions filtering by 'agency and date range', which aligns with the schema but adds no additional meaning beyond what is already present.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'top filing entities' ranked by number of filings. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like `get_filing_trends` and `get_filing_distribution` by focusing on rankings of entities rather than trends or distributions.

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 states when to use: 'Use for questions about who files the most, biggest players, or filing rankings.' This provides clear context. It does not mention when not to use or list alternatives, but the sibling tools cover distinct purposes.

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