get_disclosure_document

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

Describes key behaviors: returns main text without doc_name, attachments in documents list, and ability to fetch specific attachment. Lacks details on error handling or return format, but with no annotations, provides substantial transparency.

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?

Concise and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, second explains attachment behavior, third provides parameter details in a bulleted list. No redundant information.

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?

Covers main usage and attachment workflow adequately, but lacks output schema or explicit return format description; still sufficient given parameter count and sibling differentiation.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description adds full semantic meaning: rcept_no as 14-digit required receipt number, doc_name as optional filename from documents list, with default behavior clearly explained.

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 retrieves original text of disclosure documents by receipt number, and distinguishes from sibling tools (which are for specific data types) by focusing on raw document content and attachment workflow.

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?

Clearly explains when to use (fetch document by receipt number, with optional attachment selection) and provides a workflow (call without doc_name for main text, then use doc_name for attachments), but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives.

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