get_text_blocks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly discloses the 2,000-character excerpt behavior, the per-section return shape, and the Japanese-language nature of the content — non-obvious traits an agent needs. It does not discuss rate limits or error behavior, but for a read operation this is reasonably complete.

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?

Two efficient sentences deliver the core purpose, the content scope, and the key output behavior. Every clause earns its place, and the most important detail — what the tool reads — is front-loaded.

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?

For a moderately complex read tool with no output schema, the description explains the expected return value and format sufficiently. The remaining gaps, such as exact response structure or behavior for missing years, are minor and partially covered by the parameter schemas.

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%, so the parameters are already fully documented. The description adds marginal context by listing section names in prose, but does not materially extend the schema's meaning for full, sections, or fiscal_year.

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 names a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('narrative sections of a company's annual securities report'), and enumerates the exact sections covered. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_financials or get_disclosures.

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 implies when the tool is appropriate — when narrative annual-report text is needed — but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. The 'original filed Japanese text' detail is a useful implicit signal, but no explicit routing guidance is given.

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