Material Events Digest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the output includes severity tags, redflag_count, and category_counts, and mentions that events are tagged with item codes mapped to labels. It does not specify permissions, rate limits, or error cases, but provides sufficient detail about the tool's function and output.

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 well-structured, front-loading the main purpose and then adding details on output format, example question, and pricing. It is not overly verbose; each sentence serves a purpose. Minor room for improvement but overall concise.

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 the presence of an output schema (though details not provided to us), the description is fairly complete. It covers the tool's purpose, output (redflag_count, category_counts), and an example use case. It does not discuss error handling or limits, but it adequately sets expectations for a digest 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides (ticker_or_cik and lookback_days). It focuses on the output and use case, not parameter details, so no extra value is given.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving a severity-ranked digest of 8-K and 8-K/A filings, specifying the resource (filings), action (retrieve digest), and output format (tags, severity levels, counts). It also provides a concrete example question, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_insider_signal or get_company_filings_summary, which focus on different data types.

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 usage by providing an example question about recent cybersecurity incidents or restatements, and notes it is a premium-tier tool with per-call cost. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use it, leaving room for ambiguity in tool selection.

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