check_disclosure_anomaly

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently lists the 5 indicators, states return format (counts and basis disclosure names, no scores/grades), and mentions the version. It does not mention read-only or side effects, but given the tool is likely read-only, the disclosure is adequate.

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 concise: purpose, indicator list, and Args section. It is front-loaded and has minimal waste. However, the indicator list could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) for clarity.

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 an output schema covering return values, the description sufficiently explains inputs for company_name and lookback_years, but misses lookback_days and does not elaborate on the meaning of each indicator. This leaves some context gaps for the agent.

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%, so the description must compensate. It describes company_name (accepts name or stock code) and lookback_years (range 1-5, default 1), but does not mention the lookback_days parameter at all, leaving one parameter undocumented.

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 aggregates 5 specific disclosure anomaly indicators and returns a factual summary. It explicitly differentiates by stating it does not quantify or grade risk (v0.8.5 principle), distinguishing it from siblings like check_disclosure_risk.

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 explicitly states when to use (to get factual summary of anomaly indicators) and what it does not do (no risk quantification). While it does not name alternatives, the negative statement provides clear usage boundaries.

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