get_top_filers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds that the output is entities aggregated and ranked by filing count, which is real behavioral context, but says nothing about default result size, tie handling, or pagination beyond what the schema already carries.

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, front-loaded with the core action, then filters, then use cases. Every sentence carries information and none repeats the name or schema.

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?

Covers what the tool returns (ranked entities), how to narrow it (agency, dates), and when it applies — enough for a zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema. Missing only minor operational detail such as default result count and ranking tie behavior.

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 baseline applies. The description echoes the agency and date-range filters but omits entity_type and limit, adding no syntax or semantics beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Get the top filing entities') plus the ranking metric ('ranked by number of filings'), which distinguishes it from list-style siblings like search_filings and from entity-oriented siblings like get_entity_profile. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Provides concrete triggering questions ('who files the most, biggest players, or filing rankings') that map cleanly to an aggregation tool. No explicit exclusion or named alternative for, e.g., per-entity lookups, so it is clear context without full when-not guidance.

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