search_market_disclosures

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states this is a batch scan of all listed company disclosures, that it does not filter by company, and that days and max_results have upper bounds (90 and 200). It also lists valid preset values. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or result ordering, but for a read-only search tool these are less critical.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then uses structured sections for usage examples and parameter details. Every sentence adds value—examples clarify the API, and the Args list provides the full preset enum. No filler or 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 three parameters and an output schema, the description covers the tool's scope, params, and examples well. It does not explain how results are ordered or what 'all_risk' encompasses, but the output schema likely covers return structure. Overall it is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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% and the preset parameter has no enum in the schema. The description compensates fully by listing all preset values, explaining three with concrete examples, and providing defaults and maximum values for days and max_results that are not in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: '스캔한다' (scans) market-wide disclosures for preset risk signals. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing it queries all listed companies without a company name, unlike per-company tools like list_disclosures_by_stock.

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 it is for market-wide early warning, and gives three concrete usage examples (cb_issue, treasury, reverse_split). It implies when to use it (when no specific company is targeted) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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