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 behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool downloads the original filing and removes HTML markup to produce plain text, making the read-only, transformative nature of the operation clear. It omits topics such as authentication and error cases, but these are secondary for this simple retrieval tool.

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 compact and front-loaded, with a clear summary sentence followed by supporting behavior and one parameter explanation. There is no filler, and each sentence adds relevant information.

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 an output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, parameter format, and typical usage context. It does not mention authentication or failure behavior, but those are not essential to invoking this tool correctly.

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?

Although the schema provides no description coverage, the description's Args section fully documents rcept_no: it is a 14-digit receipt number (접수번호) obtained from search_disclosures or other DART tools. This adds format, source, and context beyond the bare schema type.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Get the plain-text content of one DART disclosure document.' It further clarifies the mechanism (downloads original filing, strips HTML) and ties itself to search_disclosures, distinguishing it from the search-oriented sibling tools.

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 states a clear usage context: 'Useful for reading the details of any filing found via search_disclosures.' This tells an agent when to invoke it, though it does not explicitly enumerate when-not-to-use or compare against other sibling tools in detail.

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