List Company Documents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral details: ordering ('Newest first') and the nature of the output ('No prose'). It does not contradict annotations, and the added context fills the remaining gap without redundancy.

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?

The description is succinct yet information-dense. It front-loads the core purpose, lists output fields, explicitly states 'No prose', and prescribes the calling sequence and alternatives—all in a few sentences. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (fields, links, formats) and its ordering. It also covers the decision flow (call first, then branch to other tools). For a list/index tool, this is complete and leaves no critical questions unanswered.

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 83% (5 of 6 parameters have descriptions; 'limit' lacks one but has default/min/max). The description does not add any parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It focuses on output fields rather than input parameters, so it adds no extra value here. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the burden.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Index of a company's filings parsed to text' and enumerates the output fields (doc_id, type, period, etc.). It also explicitly says 'No prose' and names the follow-up tools (get_document_summary, read_document), which distinguishes it from siblings that return actual content. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Call first.' and then prescribes next steps: either use get_document_summary/read_document for text, or hand a link/download to search locally. This clearly tells the agent when to use this tool and how to proceed, which is more than most descriptions provide.

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