get_insider_trades

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the upstream source (SEC Form 4), US-only coverage, the P/S transaction codes, and that non-trade events like grants and tax withholdings are included. It stops short of noting data lag (Form 4 filing delay) or any rate/limit behavior.

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 with the core purpose, then a scannable Args/Returns block; every line is short and useful. The coverage enumeration ('plus option exercises, grants, tax withholdings, etc.') is slightly padded but conveys legitimate scope information.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't detail return values, and its one-line return note suffices. Annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is the undocumented detail_level parameter, which is material for a three-parameter tool with zero schema-description coverage.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It documents symbol as a US ticker and adds a real constraint the schema lacks (days_back default 180, max 365), but it omits detail_level entirely despite that being a summary/full enum that changes the response shape.

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 insider trading data from SEC Form 4 filings') plus a scope qualifier ('US stocks only'), which separates it from portfolio-oriented siblings like get_transactions and get_holdings. It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 'US stocks only' qualifier and the Form 4 sourcing imply when this tool applies, and the enumerated trade categories help the agent recognize relevant data. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing against alternatives such as get_transactions or get_ticker_research.

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