query_disclosures

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers almost nothing: no mention of pagination (cursor/limit), default filtering behavior (latest_revision_only defaults true), permissions, or what 'tek kısa sonuç sözleşmesi' actually constrains. The single clause hints at a compact result shape but does not disclose operationally relevant traits.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. However, the brevity tips into under-specification for a 15-parameter tool, so the concision is not earning its place against the information the agent needs.

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 return values need not be described, but that is the only burden lifted. With 15 parameters, zero schema coverage, no annotations, and no usage guidance, the description is far from complete enough for an agent to invoke this tool 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?

All 15 parameters have 0% schema description coverage, so the description must supply their meaning and it supplies none. The reference to 'company and fund' loosely gestures at the entity-related filters (entity_codes, entity_types), but date, period, subject, report-type, cursor, and attachment parameters are entirely undocumented in both places.

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 specific verb ('sorgular' = queries) and resource ('Şirket ve fon bildirimleri' = company and fund disclosures), so the core purpose is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings such as get_disclosure, get_expected_disclosures, or get_corporate_actions, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone why it would pick this tool over those.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. Given the large sibling set covering overlapping disclosure concepts, the absence of any routing advice is a meaningful gap.

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