insider_dealings_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds 'parsed into structured fields,' which hints at output formatting, but does not disclose behaviors such as sorting, pagination, or any limitations. It does not contradict annotations (none exist), but it provides minimal additional context beyond the tool's name.

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 a single, focused sentence that conveys the core function without fluff. It is well-structured and efficient, earning a high score for conciseness.

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?

The tool is simple (two parameters, output schema exists), but the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not explain what structured fields are returned, nor any edge cases or usage context. The existence of an output schema helps, but the description itself leaves 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%, and the description does not elaborate on parameters. However, the parameter names are self-explanatory (company_id and limit), and limit has a default. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema, so a score of 2 is appropriate.

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 'List UK MAR director/PDMR/PCA dealings parsed into structured fields.' It specifies the verb (List), the resource (dealings), and the scope (UK MAR director/PDMR/PCA), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like major_holders_list or disclosures_search.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, nor does it reference sibling tools. The usage context is implied by the tool name and description, but there is no explicit direction.

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