list_disclosures_by_stock

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the default and maximum for lookback_days, but does not describe behavior when no disclosures are found, pagination, or any side effects. The mention of 'recent' is vague.

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—a short paragraph plus two well-structured argument descriptions—with no unnecessary words or repetition. It efficiently conveys key information.

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 simple list tool with an output schema (not shown but present), the description explains what the tool does, how to use it, and how to chain with other tools. It lacks only minor details like sorting or error handling, but is largely complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds essential meaning: stock_code is a 6-digit code with an example, and lookback_days specifies a default and maximum, which the schema alone does not provide.

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 a list of recent disclosure receipt numbers by stock code, using a specific verb ('retrieve') and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that analyze, view, or check disclosures.

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 hints that the output can be used in other tools (e.g., get_disclosure_document), implying a chaining use case, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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