get_top_filers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states filtering and ranking behavior but does not disclose read-only nature, performance implications, or any side effects. Given no contradictions, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 concise sentences plus a use-case sentence, no fluff. Front-loaded with key action and result. Every sentence adds value.

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?

No output schema is provided, but the tool returns aggregated rankings, which is intuitive. The description covers purpose and filtering well but could specify return fields like entity name and count. Still, for a simple ranking tool, it is mostly complete.

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% with descriptions on each parameter. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond rephrasing schema ('filter by agency and date range'). Baseline 3 is correct as the schema already documents parameters well.

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 the tool retrieves top filing entities ranked by number of filings, with filter options. It explicitly mentions use cases like 'who files the most' and 'filing rankings', distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_filings or search_entities.

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 provides explicit use cases ('questions about who files the most, biggest players, or filing rankings'), guiding when to use. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' statements or comparisons to alternatives.

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