get_insider_career_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. Description adds that it requires a Pro plan and that return fields are fractions (e.g., 0.05 = +5%), complementing annotations without contradiction. No missing behavioral traits.

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?

Single paragraph is efficient and front-loaded with the main purpose. Could be slightly more structured (bullets for fields), but no redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Covers purpose, usage guidance, behavioral nuances, and parameter details. Does not mention error handling or rate limits, but given simplicity (single param, no output schema) and annotations, it is sufficiently complete.

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 covers the CIK parameter fully. Description adds value by noting leading zeros optional, providing a concrete example (Tim Cook), instructing to resolve names via search_insiders, and clarifying return format (fractions).

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 it aggregates a career rollup for one insider by CIK, listing specific data fields. It explicitly distinguishes from get_insider_transactions, making its purpose unambiguous and distinct among siblings.

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?

Explicit usage guidance: 'Use this instead of get_insider_transactions when you want a pre-computed summary rather than raw rows; pair with the generated get_insider_scorecard'. Provides when-to-use, when-not, and recommended companion tool.

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