scan_disclosure_signals

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

The description thoroughly explains the behavioral traits: it returns computed assessments (absent, likely_boilerplate, etc.) with definitions, warns that a hit is not a condition, and advises verification. Since no annotations are provided, the description fully covers the tool's behavior.

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 relatively long but well-structured with bullet points for assessment values. Every sentence adds value, though brevity could be improved slightly. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core action.

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 no output schema, the description explains the four possible assessment outcomes and their meanings. It also positions the tool relative to siblings. The coverage is sufficient for a tool of this complexity, though explicit enumeration of output fields would improve completeness.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning by explaining extra_phrases ('appends your own exact phrases'). It does not explicitly describe the query parameter, but context from sibling tools implies it is a company identifier. This compensation raises the score above baseline.

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 scans a company's filings for specific risk language (e.g., going-concern doubt, material weaknesses). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool compute_screening_metrics by noting that financial tools cannot see these qualitative signals.

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 advises using this tool alongside compute_screening_metrics for the risk-signals part of a screen, implying when it is appropriate. It does not explicitly list when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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