search_market_disclosures

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

The description implies the tool is read-only by stating it 'scans' and 'queries', but it does not explicitly mention non-destructiveness, authentication requirements, or rate limits. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden but is minimally 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 succinct with a clear structure: a one-line purpose, an explanatory sentence, usage examples, and parameter details. Every part is relevant and adds value without redundancy.

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 three parameters (with only one required) and an output schema, the description covers the usage context, parameter details, and intended use case comprehensively. It does not need to explain return values due to the output 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?

The description provides detailed explanations for each parameter, including a list of valid preset values, default and maximum for days, and default and maximum for max_results. This adds significant value beyond the input schema which only defines types and defaults.

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 verb 'scan' and the resource 'market disclosures' with the specific scope of preset risk signals. It distinguishes from siblings like list_disclosures_by_stock by emphasizing it queries all listed companies, not a single one.

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 explains that the tool is used for early warning of market-wide risk diffusion without specifying a company name. It provides concrete usage examples with presets and days but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives.

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