Blocked disclosures

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the data being withdrawn under KVKK and that it explains 'not found' results, but it does not disclose details like whether the list is exhaustive, pagination, or how the stated reason is formatted.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a valuable use case ('Explains not found results for specific ids') without redundancy.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema present, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool returns and why it exists. It could be slightly stronger by noting whether the result is a full list or a lookup, but the output schema likely covers return structure.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics to cover. The description adds meaning by explaining what the returned data represents (withdrawn disclosures with stated reasons), which is the only semantic context needed for a no-parameter tool.

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The description states a specific verb ('withdrawn from public access') and resource ('Disclosures KAP has withdrawn'), and adds the purpose of explaining 'not found' results for specific ids. It is clear about what the tool returns, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_disclosure or search_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 to use this tool: when a disclosure id appears 'not found' or when checking blocked/withdrawn disclosures. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer the usage context from the sibling list.

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