search_disclosure

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that only disclosures with data matching requested_items are returned, and describes the return text. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention error handling, date range validation, or the absence of results. The inclusion of a 'ctx' parameter not present in the schema adds minor confusion.

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 an intro, Args section, and Returns section, front-loading the primary purpose. It is slightly longer than necessary due to detailed examples and the redundant ctx parameter, but every other piece of information earns its place. The structure aids quick scanning.

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?

The description covers the main behavior: purpose, filtering logic, and return summary. Since an output schema exists, the return details are partially covered elsewhere. However, it lacks information about edge cases (e.g., no disclosures found) and does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, which would be expected given no annotations.

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?

The description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema, which has 0% description coverage. It provides concrete examples for company_name (e.g., Samsung Electronics, Naver), exact date format with examples (YYYYMMDD), and a comprehensive list of valid financial items for requested_items. This effectively compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions. The only minor flaw is the stray 'ctx' parameter mention.

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 and provides a company's key financial information' (회사의 주요 재무 정보를 검색하여 제공하는 도구), identifying a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like search_detailed_financial_data or search_json_financial_data, relying mainly on the name for differentiation.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its alternatives. There is no mention of sibling tools, exclusions, or prerequisites. The only hint is the purpose statement, which implies usage for financial disclosure search but does not help an agent choose among similar tools.

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