search_reports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses almost nothing: it does not state that the operation is read-only, how pagination works (size/from_ exist in the schema), result limits, or ordering. The mention of 'highlights' is the only behavioral detail.

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, but it is arguably too terse for a 7-parameter tool, leaving room that could have been spent on filters 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 values need no explanation, but with 7 parameters at 29% coverage, no annotations, and no usage guidance, the definition is too thin for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 only 29% (only query and year are documented). The description says 'filtered search' but never explains what company, section, stock_code, size, or from_ mean, so it fails to compensate for the large coverage 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 verb ('search') and resource ('cnreport indices') plus the mode ('full-text + filtered') and a return trait ('highlights'). That distinguishes it from get_*/list_* siblings, but it doesn't name which sibling to prefer, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_report_types, get_filing, or get_section. Usage is only implied by the word 'search'; no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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