SEC Form D private placements

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

No annotations and no output schema, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the record contents (issuer, amount sold, amount offered, investor counts, pooled-fund flag), which is useful. It says nothing about result caps, pagination, default window length, or ordering guarantees, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for a bulk data endpoint.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads what the data contains, the second front-loads the three access patterns. No filler, no restatement of the name or title, and the most decision-relevant information comes first.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only guidance available. It covers data content and query modes but omits defaults (e.g. default days), result limits, and what happens when no cik filter is supplied. Adequate to attempt a call, but not complete for a 4-parameter, 25%-coverage endpoint.

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 coverage is only 25% (only 'funds' is documented), so the description must compensate, and it largely does: 'one issuer by CIK' maps to cik, 'largest raises in a window' maps to days and the sort behavior, and 'whether it is a pooled fund' maps to funds. It does not clarify default values or the fact that sort only accepts 'recent', which is a minor residual gap.

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?

States a specific data source and resource (SEC Form D exempt-offering notices) plus the fields returned, which is well beyond a tautology. It lists three concrete query modes (largest raises in a window, one issuer by CIK, most recent filings) that distinguish it from siblings like insider_trades or large_holders. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling it should be chosen over, so 4 rather than 5.

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 three listed modes implicitly map to the parameters (window → days, issuer → cik, recent → sort), giving an agent a rough sense of when each input applies. However, there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative among the many sibling SEC-data tools. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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