activist_convergence

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by explaining the internal gate (curated activist list), its rationale (precision over recall), and what would happen without it (dominance by micro-cap founders and filing-group artifacts). This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnly/idempotent hints.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by context, parameter detail, and a concrete example. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

Despite lacking explanations for two parameters, the description covers the tool's purpose, return contents (franchises, span, accession numbers), limitations (gate), and provides a realistic example. This is complete enough for an agent to select and reasonably invoke the tool, especially with an output schema present.

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?

The description explicitly explains the `since` parameter with an ISO date format and example, but provides no guidance on `window_days` or `min_activists`. Given the input schema has no parameter descriptions (coverage 0%), the description fails to compensate for these two parameters, leaving their semantics ambiguous.

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 provides a specific verb ('screen') and resource ('issuers'), with clear scope (13D filings close together). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like activist_coalition, but the focus on filing timing and activist franchises is distinctive enough to imply a unique purpose.

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 clearly frames when to use the tool ('the what is heating up screen', 'best starting point for an event-driven question'), which gives useful context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of full guideline coverage.

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