get_disclosure_document_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior, and it does so: it downloads the original filing and strips HTML to produce plain text, implying a read-only retrieval operation. It does not mention potential auth requirements or response size, but the core behavior is transparently disclosed.

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 main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, with a clear Args block for the parameter. Minor redundancy like 'or other DART tools' and the generic 'Useful for...' sentence could be trimmed, but the description is still compact and well organized.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the input, the operation, and the resulting plain-text output sufficiently well. It could add detail about API-key expectations or very large responses, but the essential context for correct selection and invocation is present.

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 only provides the parameter name and type, but the description adds crucial semantics: rcept_no must be a 14-digit receipt number and is typically the value returned by search_disclosures. This fully equips an agent to provide the correct argument.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), names a concrete resource ('plain-text content of one DART disclosure document'), and explains the transformation ('strips HTML markup'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_disclosures, which are about finding filings rather than retrieving their content.

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 explicitly ties usage to search_disclosures ('any filing found via search_disclosures'), which tells an agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not list exclusions or alternative tools for different needs, but the provided workflow guidance is clear enough.

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