agm_aoi_change_xml

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

Description discloses XML parsing, fallback to agm_parse_fallback, and references judgment criteria from agm_manual. Although no annotations are provided, the description adequately communicates core behavior without contradictions.

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?

Organized into clear sections (desc, when, rule, ref, Args) with concise sentences. Slightly verbose with fallback details but overall efficient.

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?

Covers purpose, usage conditions, behavioral rules, parameter semantics, and references to related tools. With an output schema present, no further details on return values are necessary.

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 'Args' section explains each parameter with usage context, including ticker auto-search, rcept_no override, and format options. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 explicitly states the tool compares changes in articles of incorporation (before/after/reason) and separates by detailed agenda. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like agm_agenda_xml or agm_items.

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 'when' clause specifies to use only when user requests details of aoi change (tier-5 Detail), and provides automatic search behavior. It also references fallback tools and prerequisites like corp_identifier for ambiguous cases.

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