Batch export filings & facts via Apify Actor (paid)

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) and open-world, so the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the Apify Actor and dependency (APIFY_TOKEN), the sec.gov throttle (<=5 req/s), run latency (5-60s, waits up to ~5 min), the full pay-per-event cost model with a worked cost example, and partial-failure semantics (unresolvable companies yield error rows, not a failure). This is unusually rich operational context.

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?

Front-loaded purpose, then clearly labeled WHEN TO USE / BEHAVIOR / COST / RETURNS / WHEN NOT TO USE / PARAMETERS / EXAMPLE sections, so it is scannable. It is long, and some cost detail is repeated between COST and PARAMETERS, but nearly every sentence carries actionable information for a paid 9-parameter tool.

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 an output schema existing, the description still summarizes the return shape ({count, items}, row types, key fields, error codes and retryable flag), and covers prerequisites, cost, latency, and failure handling. An agent has everything needed to decide whether and how to call it.

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 already 100%, but the PARAMETERS block adds meaning the schema does not: which parameters apply under each mode, billing implications per row, that '[]' means all forms / built-in 10-concept set, case-sensitive us-gaap/dei concept names, and inclusive date comparison. The per-row billing math ('size those three numbers first') directly informs parameter choices.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Bulk export (paid, via Apify) of structured SEC EDGAR data for up to 50 US companies,' and enumerates exactly what is exported (entity metadata, filings, XBRL facts, excerpts). It explicitly contrasts itself with the free single-purpose siblings, so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.

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 explicit WHEN TO USE (mode='filings' vs 'facts' vs 'both'), names the exact alternative tools and the condition that selects them ('Prefer the free single-purpose tools ... for interactive lookups'), and adds a WHEN NOT TO USE section plus exclusions (no real-time quotes, prices, options, non-US companies, advice).

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