edgar_ownership_filings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds context about the filing types and activist focus but does not disclose return format or pagination behavior. This is adequate given the annotation coverage.

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 short sentences with no filler. The key purpose and use case are presented first, making it easy for the agent to quickly understand the tool without extraneous details.

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 only two parameters, no output schema, and simple purpose, the description covers the basics. However, it does not hint at the structure of the response (e.g., filer name, stake size, filing date), which would help the agent set expectations for the data returned.

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 100% and both parameters (ticker, limit) are described concisely. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, which is expected when schema is already informative.

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 monitors significant ownership changes (5%+ stakes) using 13D and 13G filings, with specific examples of activist investors. This distinguishes it from other Edgar sibling tools like insider trades or institutional holdings.

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 explicitly states the use case (monitoring ownership changes via activist filings) and even names relevant filers. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives like edgar_insider_trades for non-5% stakes, though siblings are available.

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