proxy_litigation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source (DART), filtering method (lawsuit keywords on specific disclosure types), and that it parses only the latest 3 original texts. This provides good insight into internal behavior.

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 uses a structured format with labels (desc, when, rule, ref), making it scannable. It is concise, with every sentence adding value, though the Korean language may slightly reduce clarity for non-Korean agents.

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 has 3 parameters (undocumented), an output schema, and 34 sibling tools, the description provides good usage context and behavioral details but fails to explain parameter semantics. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain any of the 3 parameters (ticker, year, format) beyond implying ticker identifies the company. The default values and purpose of year and format are missing, leaving the agent without guidance.

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 searches for management dispute litigation disclosures and provides a timeline of filings and judgments. It distinguishes from sibling tools like proxy_fight by noting they can be called together for a full picture.

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 states when to use (tier-4 Analysis for management disputes, lawsuits, injunctions, judgments) and recommends calling with proxy_fight. References related tools (corp_identifier, proxy_search, ownership_block) for further context.

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