get_advance_disclosure_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what fields are returned, but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, pagination, authentication, error behavior, or any side effects. This is a minimal description that adds little beyond the obvious 'list' function.

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 three short lines: purpose first, then output fields, then parameter hint. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one optional parameter, no filler, and front-loads the main purpose.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional param) and an output schema (which describes return shape), the description covers the core function and the parameter. However, it lacks usage context (when to use siblings) and behavioral notes (e.g., read-only nature). For a basic lookup tool this is acceptable but incomplete.

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 schema has zero description coverage, so the description must explain parameters. It does clarify that 'keyword' is a partial-match filter on file name ('파일명 부분일치 필터'), which adds meaning beyond the bare 'string' type. However, it does not mention case sensitivity, encoding, or edge cases, so it is adequate but not rich.

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 specifies the action ('조회' – retrieve) and the resource ('첨부파일 목록' – attachment file list for advance disclosures), and lists the provided fields (file name, extension, linked disclosure number). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_advance_disclosure and get_advance_disclosure_detail, though it does not explicitly name these alternatives.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites. The only usage-related hint is 'keyword: 파일명 부분일치 필터', which is a parameter explanation, not a usage guideline.

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