get_insider_trades

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context – the CVM/VLMO Instruction 358 provenance and the fact that this is a raw transaction-level signal dataset – but says nothing about row limits (max_rows default 2000, cap 20000), truncation behavior, or historical coverage bounds beyond those already in the schema.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the entity scope and followed by the payload contents. Nothing is wasted, though the second sentence partly duplicates what the output schema already conveys.

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?

With an output schema present and full parameter coverage, the description only needs to frame scope and provenance, which it does. The remaining gap is disambiguation from insider_summary and the aggregate-vs-raw distinction, which matters for a dataset with 30+ siblings.

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 every parameter including company, role, operation, first_year/last_year and max_rows is already documented in structured form. The description merely enumerates returned fields (role, movement type, date, quantity, unit price, volume) without adding syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the 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 the resource precisely – transactions by controllers, officers and board members – with its regulatory provenance (CVM/VLMO, Instruction 358). An agent knows exactly what dataset is behind the tool, though it is not explicitly contrasted with the sibling insider_summary.

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 description says what the dataset is but never says when to choose this tool over insider_summary, get_shareholders or get_compensation. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-routing hints, leaving the agent to infer selection from names alone.

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