search_insiders

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

Disclosed pagination, case-insensitive substring matching, minimum length requirement, and 400 error for short queries. Also notes free tier availability. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but description adds concrete details beyond that.

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?

Four sentences, each with clear purpose. First sentence defines action, second explains output and downstream use, third covers default behavior, fourth notes pricing. No waste.

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?

No output schema, but description explains return fields (CIK, title, flags, filing count). Covers error case (short query) and pricing. Complete enough given the tool's simplicity and sibling context.

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?

All parameters fully described in schema (100% coverage). Description adds key details: case-insensitive substring, minimum 2 characters, page defaults, per_page max 500. This adds practical usage constraints beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states the tool searches insiders by name and returns CIK, title, and flags. Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_company_insiders by explicitly mentioning CIK resolution for downstream endpoints.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use: 'resolve a person's name to their CIK before fetching transaction history, career summary, or scorecard'. Also notes behavior when name is omitted. Does not explicitly mention when not to use, but context with sibling tools implies it.

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