Scan filing index for disqualifiers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context the annotations lack: the operation costs one request, and it clarifies the scanned universe of event types. It still does not describe what the call returns.

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?

Single dense paragraph, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the concrete event list and the sequencing rule. Every clause earns its place; nothing is filler.

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 two-parameter scan with no output schema, the description covers what is checked, the cost, and when to call it. The main gap is the absence of any indication of the return shape (pass/fail vs. event list), which matters when no output schema exists.

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 100%, so both ticker and lookbackDays are fully documented in the schema, including the lookback rationale ('Restatements from a decade ago are history'). The description adds no parameter syntax or default info beyond that, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb (scan) and resource (SEC filing index) and enumerates exactly which events it looks for (8-K items, Form 25, NT filings, gaps). It is clearly distinct from valuation siblings like analyze_ticker because it is framed as a pre-valuation disqualifier check.

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 instructs to run it BEFORE any valuation work and explains why (a failing name is 'dead' regardless of price). It gives strong ordering context but does not name an alternative sibling (e.g., analyze_ticker) to route against.

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