get_disclosure_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the tool returns the full document text and a list of attached files, and that it truncates long documents with a notice. It does not mention any potential side effects or authentication requirements, but for a read-only retrieval tool, this 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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, a list of behaviors, and parameter details. It is somewhat lengthy but each sentence adds value. The front-loaded format aids quick understanding.

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 that an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere) and the tool has only two parameters, the description is complete. It covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, input format, truncation behavior, and alternatives for longer documents.

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 input schema provides no descriptions for parameters (0% coverage), so the description must add meaning. It explains rcept_no as a 14-digit DART receipt number with an example, and max_chars with default and maximum values. This fully compensates for the schema gaps.

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 the full disclosure document by receipt number (DART 접수번호로 공시 원문 전체를 조회). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools list_disclosure_sections and view_disclosure by explicitly mentioning them as alternatives for longer documents or specific sections.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool (when you have the receipt number and want the full text) and when to use alternatives (for longer documents, use list_disclosure_sections/view_disclosure). It also mentions the max_chars limitation and the resulting truncation notice.

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