get_report_pages

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

With no annotations, the description clearly explains parameter interactions (end_page wins over page_count, section_code overrides others), default values, and cache hint via stock_code. No contradictions.

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 sections and bullet points, but slightly verbose with some repeated explanations (e.g., end_page winning). Still, each sentence adds value, so it remains efficient.

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 no annotations, the description covers all aspects: modes, parameter usage, strategy, rules, and acknowledges the output schema (not shown). It is complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 detailed parameter meanings, default values, interactions, and examples (e.g., stock_code for cache hit rate), going far 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 retrieves page content from a parsed DART report, specifies two modes (page range vs section_code), and distinguishes from sibling tools like keyword_search and get_report_toc.

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 includes a <strategy> block advising to use this tool for reading large continuous blocks and to prefer keyword_search for targeted fact-finding. <critical_rules> advise keeping page_count reasonable and using get_report_toc for section_code.

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