agm_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses automatic search for ticker, fallback behavior with use_llm and max_fallback_length, and hierarchy for agenda_no. It doesn't explicitly mention read-only nature or authorization, but these are implied by the context of returning raw content.

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 clear sections (desc, when, rule, ref, args) and no wasted words. It is somewhat lengthy but every sentence serves a purpose. Could be slightly more concise, but still excellent.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage context, behavior, parameter details, and relationships to sibling tools. It enables correct invocation without requiring external knowledge.

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%, so description must compensate. It explains each parameter's meaning and behavior: ticker vs rcept_no priority, agenda_no hierarchical expansion, use_llm fallback, max_fallback_length limit, format option. This adds significant value beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns detailed raw text blocks per agenda item in markdown, distinguishing it from specialized parsers like agm_financials_xml. It specifies that this is for items without specialized parsers, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicit 'when' section says to use only when raw text of specific agenda item is needed. 'rule' section advises using specialized parsers if available and to call corp_identifier if company identification is uncertain. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with alternatives.

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