late_filers

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), and the description layers on real behavioral context: the 45-day legal threshold that defines "late," the fact that lateness is usually one big catch-up report rather than many, and that a multi-year "longest" delay may be a filing typo checkable via the returned link. It also pre-empts a likely misinterpretation, which is exactly the kind of disclosure annotations cannot provide.

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 definition and the 45-day rule, then output shape, then caveats, then args — a sensible order with no filler. It runs a bit long, and the caveat sentences serve response framing as much as tool selection, but each one carries non-obvious information rather than restating structured fields.

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?

Only two optional parameters, an output schema is present so return values needn't be described in detail, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description still explains the ranking's components and the caveats around interpreting them, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly or frame the result honestly.

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 carries the full burden and does: days is bounded 1-3650 and omitting it means all history; limit is bounded 1-50 with a stated default of 15. Both parameters gain range, default, and semantic meaning that the bare schema does not supply.

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?

Names a specific population (members of Congress who disclose trades after the STOCK Act deadline) and states exactly what the tool produces: a ranking by count of late trades with share-late, report counts, typical and longest delay, and a link to the worst filing. That is clearly distinct from siblings like congress_trades (raw trades) and member_track_record (performance), so an agent can pick it without opening the 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?

Gives concrete usage guidance for the scope parameter ("omit for all history") and, unusually, interpretive guidance: late filing is a disclosure failure, not evidence of insider trading, and the agent should say so if the user implies otherwise. It doesn't explicitly name which sibling to use instead for other trade questions, so it falls short of a full when/when-not routing statement.

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