proxy_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses data retrieval behavior: auto-searches latest filing, parses document via get_document(), extracts specific sections, and parameter priority. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or potential side effects, though mutation is clearly not intended.

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 front-loaded with key info. Could be slightly more concise, but each sentence adds value.

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 an output schema exists (though not provided), the description adequately covers input parameters and behavioral rules. It does not describe error handling or edge cases, but the auto-discovery and priority rules provide sufficient context for correct invocation.

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%, but the description provides thorough explanations: ticker (with example and auto-discovery behavior), rcept_no (priority and direct input), and format (default and options). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 provides proxy detail (solicitor shares, period, agent, electronic method) and distinguishes from siblings like proxy_search and proxy_direction via the 'ref' section. The verb is implicit but fully contextualized.

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' section explicitly states when to use (need proxy solicitor info) and the 'rule' suggests calling corp_identifier if entity is uncertain. It lists reference tools but does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives.

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