Get disclosure

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, establishing the operation is safe. The description adds value by detailing what the response includes (normalized metadata, plain text body, flattened structured data) and the default behavior. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful context about output structure.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('One disclosure') followed by specific metadata fields. Every element contributes meaning; there is no redundant or filler content. It is concise while being thorough.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values in detail. It covers the key aspects: normalized metadata, body content, and flattening behavior. It does not mention edge cases like truncation or error handling, but these are likely covered by the schema and annotations. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to call correctly with moderate confidence.

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 coverage is 75% with three of four parameters having descriptions. The description lists metadata fields but does not directly elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It adds marginal value, such as clarifying that 'text' is the default format and that data is flattened, but this is mostly covered by the schema's enum descriptions.

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 a single disclosure with normalized metadata and body content. It distinguishes the singular nature ('One disclosure') from search-based siblings, but does not explicitly name alternative tools like search_disclosures. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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 usage when a specific disclosure_id is known, reinforced by the required parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over search_disclosure_data or other document retrieval tools, nor does it provide exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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