get_disclosures

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool returns filing metadata (dates and types) rather than narrative content, which prevents misuse. It does not mention pagination, result limits, or ordering, but for a read-only listing tool the core behavior is transparent.

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 two sentences with no waste. The first sentence front-loads the action, resource, and output fields; the second sentence adds the usage distinction and the alternative tool. Every word earns its place.

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?

The schema fully documents all five parameters, and the description states the return fields and the intended use case while naming the relevant sibling tool. There is no output schema, but the description names the key returned attributes. The only notable gap is the absence of pagination or result-limit behavior, which would be useful but is not critical for this simple list operation.

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 100%, and the param descriptions already provide strong guidance: EDINET code examples, clear date formats, and comma-separated type filter semantics. The description itself adds no deeper parameter meaning beyond 'given period' and document types, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('regulatory documents one company filed in a given period'), and it names the key output fields ('filing dates and document types'). It also clearly separates this tool from get_text_blocks, which is pointed to for narrative filing content.

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 explicitly frames when to use this tool: to answer 'what did they file and when', and directs the agent to get_text_blocks for reading narrative content. The schema additionally instructs the agent to resolve a name or securities code with search_companies first, giving a complete usage path.

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