agm_capital_reserve_xml

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses XML parsing, fallback to agm_parse_fallback, reliance on agm_manual for judgment, and the need for corp_identifier if identification is uncertain. This provides substantial behavioral context beyond a simple 'get data'.

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 well-structured with labeled sections (desc, when, rule, ref, Args) and is concise. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers usage, parameters, fallback, and references. It could mention error handling or behavior when no data is found, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an expert user.

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 0% (no descriptions in schema), but the description fully compensates: it explains ticker accepts stock code or company name, describes rcept_no priority, and defines format options (md/json). This is excellent parameter 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 clearly states the tool handles capital reserve decrease/transfer to retained earnings as a prerequisite for reducing dividends. It distinguishes from sibling tools like agm_financials_xml by specifying its domain, though it could explicitly state the verb (e.g., 'retrieves') for even greater clarity.

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 specifies when to use (only when user requests capital reserve details with tier-5 detail) and provides usage steps (ticker-only auto-search). It references fallback and identification tools, offering good context, though it doesn't directly contrast with similar tools like agm_agenda_xml.

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