get_disclosure

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only enumerates returned data. It says nothing about whether the call is read-only, what happens if the disclosure_index is invalid, permission requirements, or size/rate behavior of attachment retrieval.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler — the returned components come before any caveats and every word earns its place. It is efficient, though it could have used the same sentence budget to add differentiating context.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return shape need not be spelled out. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage across four parameters, the description is only barely sufficient for correct invocation, particularly for content_format and disclosure_index.

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 no parameter is described in the schema, so the description must compensate. It implicitly maps to include_attachments and include_revision_chain ("eklerini ve revizyon ilişkisini") and content_format, but never explains disclosure_index or the format/boolean semantics, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 Turkish description states a clear verb ("getirir") and resource ("bildirim" = disclosure) scoped to a single item ("tek bildirim"), plus what it returns: content, attachments, and revision relationship. It maps well to its own params, though it never names a sibling such as query_disclosures or get_disclosure_file to sharpen the distinction.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance is provided. The word "tek" (single) faintly implies this is for one disclosure versus a list query, but the agent is left to infer that from the name alone.

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