form-144-intel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It describes a read-only retrieval operation and lists return fields, but does not disclose behavior for invalid tickers, empty results, pagination, or any side effects. This is adequate for a simple query tool but lacks depth.

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 sentences: first defines purpose and key differentiator, second lists return fields. No wasted words, information is front-loaded and easy to parse. Achieves maximum efficiency given the content.

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 partially covers return values by listing fields. It does not specify that results are returned as a list or any structural details, but for a straightforward data retrieval tool this is largely complete. Minor gap in not describing the collection format.

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%; both parameters have clear descriptions (ticker as US stock symbol, days with default and max). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves SEC Form 144 planned insider sale filings for a US public company and distinguishes it from Form 4 by noting it is an earlier signal. It also lists the specific fields returned (seller name, role, shares, etc.), leaving no ambiguity about purpose.

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 implies use for pre-trade insider sale signals by contrasting with Form 4, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like 'insider-trades' or 'sec-insider-trades'. It provides clear context but lacks exclusions or direct alternatives.

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