get_proxy_statements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered externally. The description's only added behavioral content is the DEF 14A form type; it says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or behavior on an unknown ticker. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 fits.

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?

It is short and front-loads the actual purpose, but the 'Args'/'Returns' scaffolding duplicates schema and annotation content, and 'Returns: Dictionary containing proxy statement information' is vague filler given an output schema exists. Mild padding rather than tight prose.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the return shape needn't be explained, but the description omits useful context such as ordering of returned statements, what happens when the ticker has no DEF 14A, and how it relates to the other filing tools. For a simple 2-param read tool this is adequate but with clear gaps.

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 compensate, and it does document both parameters ('ticker: Stock ticker symbol', 'limit: Number of proxy statements to return'). However, these are near-restatements of the parameter names with no format, default-value, or ordering detail, so it only partially fills the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get proxy statements') and adds the filing form type (DEF 14A), which lets an agent distinguish it from generic filing tools like get_company_filings or search_filings. It stops short of naming a sibling it should or shouldn't be used instead of.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many filing-retrieval siblings (get_company_filings, search_filings, get_filing_content), and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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