Configure SEC Contact Email

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

Adds meaningful context beyond annotations: the SEC fair-access policy rationale, the required setup ordering, and the need to obtain user permission before collecting the email. Annotations already cover mutation/idempotency safety, and the description supplies the policy and workflow behavior that matters here.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with 'REQUIRED SETUP' and then the reason, ordering, and user-permission instruction. Every sentence contributes directly to correct invocation.

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 one-parameter configuration tool with no output schema, the description covers why it exists, when it must be called, and what the agent must ask the user. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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%, so the schema already defines the single contact_email parameter and its User-Agent header purpose. The description reinforces that it is the user's email address but adds no format or validation details 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: register a contact email for SEC EDGAR API access. It also clarifies its role as prerequisite setup, which distinguishes it from all sibling SEC data-retrieval tools.

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?

Explicitly says to call this tool before any other SEC tools and to ask the user for permission and their email address first. That gives precise ordering and interaction guidance, leaving little to inference.

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