get_mezzanine_terms

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses that values are read directly from the structured disclosure response, that EB forms have no repricing item at all (distinguished from 'no provision'), and that no judgment/score/grade is attached. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or error handling, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Well front-loaded with the purpose, then cleanly sectioned into Args and Returns, with bolding on the key scope signal. It runs a little long, but every line (field list, edge-case warning, param caveats) contributes to correct invocation.

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?

For a read/extraction tool with an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: the scope, the extracted fields, the required vs recommended params, and the EB edge case. No output-schema explanation is owed, and the corp_code caveat closes the practical gap in the sparse input schema.

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 and does: rcept_no is defined as a 14-digit DART receipt number for an issuance-decision disclosure, and corp_code as an 8-digit code that is 'effectively required' for DS005 series and reverse-resolved from the receipt number when empty. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema field names.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: outputs a terms table for a single CB/BW/EB issuance decision, then enumerates exactly which fields (conversion price, repricing floor, dilution, interest rate, claim period, fund usage) it extracts. It explicitly distinguishes itself from track_capital_structure and analyze_company_risk by scope: one receipt number versus whole-company scanning.

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?

Names the alternatives (track_capital_structure, analyze_company_risk) and the condition that selects this tool over them ('looks at just one receipt number' and 'more often needed in reporting'). The one-receipt scope is the decisive routing signal, so the agent can pick correctly without opening sibling schemas.

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