Disclosure documents

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, covering the safety profile. The description adds the return fields and the fact that it lists attachments, which is useful context but does not disclose edge cases (e.g., no attachments, invalid disclosure_id) or pagination behavior. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the next-step guidance is a natural extension. Every sentence 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?

Given the presence of an output schema (which likely documents the return structure), the description need not detail return values. For a simple list tool with one parameter, it covers the main workflow and return fields. It does not explain how to find disclosure_id, but that is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity and the availability of related sibling tools like get_disclosure.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter disclosure_id. It does not explain what disclosure_id is, how to obtain it, or its format beyond the schema's integer type. The phrase 'Pass an id' refers to attachment_id, not disclosure_id, so no guidance is given for the actual parameter. This is a significant gap for a low-coverage schema.

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 ('List'), a resource ('a disclosure's attachments'), and the exact fields returned ('attachment_id', name, source_url'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_disclosure or search_disclosures by focusing on attachments.

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?

It provides clear next-step guidance ('Pass an id to get_document_text or search_documents to read it'), indicating the workflow after listing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer when to use it.

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