get_disclosure_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It mentions downloading, extraction, and caching behaviors, but doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, potential rate limits, error conditions, or what format the output takes. The description provides some context but misses key operational traits needed for safe invocation.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core functionality (download, extract, cache), and the second covers the fallback behavior. Every word serves a purpose with zero redundancy, making it easy to parse while conveying essential information.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and its fallback behavior. However, it doesn't explain the output format, caching details, or potential side effects, leaving gaps in understanding the full operational context. It's minimally viable but could be more complete given the lack of structured metadata.

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 description doesn't explicitly mention the 'rcp_no' parameter, but with 100% schema description coverage (the schema fully documents the parameter as '공시서류의 접수번호 (14자리)'), the baseline is 3. The description adds value by contextualizing what the tool does with that document (downloads, extracts notes, caches), which helps understand the parameter's purpose beyond its technical definition.

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 states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('다운로드하고', '추출하여', '캐싱합니다') and resources ('공시서류 원본파일', '재무제표 주석'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on document retrieval and financial statement note extraction, unlike other tools that target specific corporate events or 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 when financial statement notes are needed from a disclosure document, and provides guidance on what happens if notes are absent ('다른 보고서를 찾아보라는 안내를 제공합니다'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_financial_notes' or 'get_disclosure_list', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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