get_insider_summary

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

The description discloses that it returns a summary with specific fields, but it does not mention any behavioral aspects such as read-only nature, data freshness, or if it requires any special permissions. With no annotations, this is adequate but not detailed.

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 very concise with four sentences, clearly organized with 'Args' and 'Returns'. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return structure. However, it could be more complete by noting the scope of insider activity (e.g., recent filings) and how it differs from other insider tools. Overall, sufficient for a summary tool.

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?

The description explains that 'identifier' is a ticker or CIK number and 'days' is the number of days to analyze with a default of 180. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only provides titles and types. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well.

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 returns 'a summary of insider trading activity', which is a specific verb+resource. It specifies the output includes filing counts, unique insiders, and recent activity, distinguishing it from detailed transaction tools like get_insider_transactions.

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 sibling tools like analyze_insider_sentiment or get_insider_transactions. There is no mention of when-not-to-use or alternatives.

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