agm_corrections

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

Describes behavior: compares before/after, auto-searches if only ticker, returns empty if not correction. Emphasizes importance of reason for correction. With no annotations, it carries the burden well, but could more explicitly state return format beyond mentioning 'md' or 'json'.

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?

Well-structured with labeled sections (desc, when, rule, ref, Args). Front-loads purpose. Slightly verbose with line breaks but clear and organized.

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 tool's complexity (correction announcements with auto-search), the description covers purpose, usage, behavioral notes, parameter semantics, and references to related tools. Output schema exists, so return values are not needed in description. Complete for the tool's function.

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 has 0% description coverage, but description provides detailed explanations for all three parameters: ticker (stock code or company name with auto-search behavior), rcept_no (reception number with priority over ticker), and format (md or json). Adds significant value beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states that the tool compares before/after of correction announcements and includes the reason for correction. Differentiates from siblings like agm_search (search) and corp_identifier (corporate ID).

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?

Explicitly says when to use (see differences before/after correction), notes that empty results are normal for non-corrections, and provides automatic search behavior for ticker-only input. Includes rule about distinguishing between financial figure changes and typos, and references sibling tools for identification.

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