list_bse_filings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a non-obvious behavior – the CNINFO fallback and the per-row 'source' tag distinguishing bse from cninfo – which an agent could not infer from the schema. However, it omits auth/permission requirements, pagination or rate-limit behavior, and whether the fallback triggers silently or affects result ordering.

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 core action and followed by the source semantics and return shape. No filler, though the 'Returns:' line is partly redundant given an output schema exists.

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-shape disclosure is a bonus rather than a necessity, and the fallback note is a genuine value-add. Still, for a four-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves filtering semantics and operational constraints unresolved.

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 0% across four parameters, so the description must compensate and does not: it says nothing about what year, limit, or title filter, nor the expected format of ticker_or_name. Only the implicit notion of 'a company's disclosures' gestures at ticker_or_name, leaving three parameters entirely undocumented.

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 (list) and resource (BSE-listed company disclosures), and the 'BSE-native, CNINFO fallback' clause pins down the exchange and data source. It is clear the tool is BSE-specific, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the near-identical siblings list_filings, list_sse_filings, or list_szse_filings beyond the exchange name.

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 parenthetical '(BSE-native, CNINFO fallback)' implies when this source applies, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over list_filings or the other exchange-specific listing tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. Usage must be inferred from the exchange scope alone.

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