proxy_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and discloses its rule: search DART list.json using corp_code + date range, filter by report_nm, and distinguish by flr_nm. This gives good insight into 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 (desc, when, rule, ref) making it easy to scan. It is relatively concise, though the desc line is a bit long. Every section adds information.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description leaves significant gaps: it does not explain how ticker maps to corp_code, the role of year and format, or the details of the output beyond rcept_no. The parameter usage is unclear.

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%, but the description does not explain any of the three parameters (ticker, year, format). The rule mentions corp_code and date range, but those are not clearly mapped to the parameters. No parameter meaning is added.

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 disclosures related to management rights, proxy, M&A, and provides a list of rcept_no. It distinguishes from siblings by noting it supplies rcept_no needed for proxy_detail/proxy_direction.

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 describes when to use this tool (for proxy/M&A/dispute related disclosures, to obtain rcept_no for detail tools). It references sibling tools but does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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