Japan EDINET Filing Index

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the content categories returned (prices, licensing, limits, freshness), which is useful context, but an output schema exists and would surface the same structure, so the incremental disclosure is modest.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause enumerates distinct payload content, so nothing is wasted.

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 parameters, a read-only annotation, and an output schema present, the description need not explain return values or safety. It is nearly complete for this simple tool; only a hint about when to reach for it is absent.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies under the '0 params' rule.

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?

Clear verb ("List") plus resource ("the tools of this server") and an enumeration of the payload contents (prices, data sources, licensing, daily limits, freshness). It is plainly distinguishable from siblings like get_receipt or drone_flight_check, though it does not explicitly name or contrast them.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given; usage is only implied by the discovery framing ("the tools of this server"). An agent can infer this is the entry point for learning available tools and pricing, but nothing states that intent directly.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds two genuine traits beyond that: results come from a day-by-day index of the EDINET document list, and withdrawn filings carry no content. The rest is largely a restatement of returned fields (which the output schema already carries), and 'our translation' / 'Facts only' are only vaguely informative.

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?

Front-loading the scope question is good, but the second half is a long comma-separated field inventory that duplicates the output schema and dilutes the useful behavioral notes. The closing 'Facts only.' is cryptic and does not clearly earn its place.

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 an output schema, 100% parameter coverage and read-only annotations, the definition supplies the remaining context an agent needs: the data provenance, the default 365-day window, and the withdrawn-filing caveat. Only minor items like pagination/limit behavior relative to the indexed range are left implicit.

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 all four parameters (code, limit, since, doc_type) are already documented with formats and defaults. The description adds the notion that code may target a company 'or other filer' and that the default window is 365 days, but contributes no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 rhetorical question states a clear verb (submitted) and resource (EDINET documents filed by a given Japanese company or other filer), and names the source index explicitly. It is distinguishable from edinet_filing_relations and edinet_holdings_tender_offers in substance, but never names or contrasts those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to the sibling tools (catalog, edinet_filing_relations, edinet_holdings_tender_offers). The 'last 365 days' framing implies a lookup use case, but the agent gets no routing rule for choosing this tool over the related EDINET tools.

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

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

With readOnlyHint/openWorldHint already covering the safety profile, the description earns credit for adding real behavioral context: a one-hop traversal limit, that each relation names its basis field, and the resolution policy that targets absent from the index come back as 'unresolved with reason candidates, never guessed'. That last point is genuinely non-obvious and shapes how the agent should interpret results.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the relation inventory, and the resolution caveat is placed last where it belongs. The middle relation list is dense (seven relation classes in one sentence) but each item is informative rather than padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape need not be described, and the description covers the traversal depth, the relation taxonomy, and the unresolved-target semantics that would otherwise surprise a caller. Little is missing for a single-parameter read-only lookup 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% for the single doc_id parameter, so the schema already carries the parameter's meaning and baseline 3 applies. The description adds nothing about doc_id itself — 'parentDocID' refers to returned relation fields, not the input — so there is no uplift above the baseline.

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?

Opens with a precise question-form verb+resource ('How is this EDINET filing related to other filings') and then enumerates the exact relation classes retrieved, which separates it cleanly from siblings like edinet_company_filings and edinet_holdings_tender_offers. The scope qualifier 'One hop each' and the attribution to 'EDINET's document list' make the resource boundary unambiguous.

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?

It implies usage by framing itself as the relation lookup ('How is this EDINET filing related to other filings'), and 'One hop each' tells the agent it will not traverse transitively, which prevents misuse. However, it never names a sibling alternative or states when-not to use it (e.g. use edinet_holdings_tender_offers for tender-offer details rather than relation stubs), leaving routing to inference.

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

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: newest-first ordering, an implicit 90-day default window, filer names withheld for individuals (a privacy behavior an agent could otherwise misread as missing data), and 'no interpretation of intentions; ratios as filed'. It stops short of stating result-count behavior or what happens when no filings match.

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?

Front-loaded with the core question, then dense supporting clauses with no filler sentences. Minor deduction for the dangling 'edinet_large_holding_reports' reference at the end, which reads as a truncated or misplaced pointer and slightly muddies an otherwise tight description.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers the ordering, default time window, privacy handling and the 'no interpretation' caveat. For a 4-parameter, read-only search tool this is nearly complete; only explicit sibling routing is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining that the same `issuer` argument is matched against issuerEdinetCode for large shareholding filings and subjectEdinetCode for tender offers — a semantic distinction the schema does not convey. The `kind` enum and `since`/`limit` semantics are left entirely to 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Which large shareholding and tender offer filings name this Japanese issuer?' and names the two EDINET code fields used for matching (issuerEdinetCode vs subjectEdinetCode). It is clearly about issuer-side filings, which distinguishes it in spirit from the sibling edinet_large_holding_reports, but the trailing 'ratios as filed: edinet_large_holding_reports' fragment is ambiguous — it is unclear whether it points to a sibling tool, an output field, or a data source, so the sibling boundary is not stated crisply.

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?

Usage is implied by the question framing and by the stated default of a 90-day window, so an agent can infer this is a 'filings about an issuer' lookup. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion, and no direct routing to the sibling edinet_large_holding_reports for the filer-side view.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: results are newest-first, sourced from EDINET's CSV of each report, corporate holder names only (others withheld), and figures are as filed with no evaluation or intent commentary. Only pagination/truncation behavior beyond the limit cap is left unstated.

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 core question is front-loaded in the first sentence and the field inventory follows. It is dense but every clause carries information; the middle sentence is long and could be split for readability, which keeps it from a 5.

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 an output schema present, return-field detail is not strictly required, yet the description still enumerates the payload and flags data caveats (withheld names, unaudited facts). Combined with read-only annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only sibling disambiguation is missing.

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 all four parameters (issuer, limit, since, holder) are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces ordering ('newest first') and the issuer/holder concept but adds no syntax, defaults, or edge-case meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb-and-resource pair: it returns holding ratios, shares held/outstanding, dates, amendment flags and joint totals from Japanese large shareholding and change reports. An agent can tell it apart from generic filing tools like edinet_company_filings, but the closest sibling, edinet_holdings_tender_offers, is never named or contrasted, leaving ambiguity about which holding-related tool to pick.

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?

Usage is only implied by the question framing ('What holding ratios did ... state?'). There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to an alternative sibling for related queries. The closing caveat ('Facts as filed: not evaluated, nothing about purposes or intentions') limits expectations but is not selection guidance.

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

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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true, the description discloses pricing ('Free'), error behavior for unknown/unsettled ids (RECEIPT_NOT_FOUND), and a retention window (30 days after settlement). These are substantive operational facts an agent cannot get from the annotations or schema.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by cost, error case, and retention. No sentence is redundant and nothing is buried.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the annotations cover safety. The description still covers cost, failure mode, and data lifetime, leaving no material gap for an agent calling this single-param read 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the 'rcpt_' + 64 hex format, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic constraint by implying the id must belong to a settled paid call, which goes slightly beyond the schema's format-only documentation.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Re-fetch the stored result of a settled paid call by its receipt_id.' This is unambiguous and an agent can immediately tell what the tool returns and what it operates on, even though the sibling tools are unrelated.

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?

It states the triggering condition clearly ('for when the response was lost after payment'), which is exactly the scenario that should select this tool. It also implicitly scopes usage to settled calls via the RECEIPT_NOT_FOUND note, though it names no alternative tools for other recovery paths.

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