get_8k_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool classifies items and returns excerpts, which is useful for a read operation, but it does not mention output format, error handling, or any limitations. It is adequate but not rich in transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the core action and includes relevant examples in parentheses, making it both concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool has one parameter and no output schema, so the description must clarify the return value. It does mention excerpts, giving some sense of output, but lacks detail on exact return structure or edge cases. Given the low complexity, this 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?

The only parameter 'accession' is fully described in the schema as '8-K accession number,' giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the specific verb 'Classify' and identifies the resource as 'the numbered items an 8-K reports,' with concrete examples (5.02, 4.01, 2.02) and states excerpts are included. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like extract_filing_section or search_filings.

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 implies the tool is for classifying 8-K items, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance, mention alternatives, or state when not to use it. This meets the 'implied usage' level but not the 'clear context with exclusions' level.

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