codal_filings

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

The annotations already establish a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description usefully adds expected result content, including publish time, tracing number, and page/PDF/Excel/attachment links, but gives no further context about pagination, default date behavior, availability of files, or external-source limitations.

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?

A single compact sentence front-loads the action and resource, then efficiently lists the principal returned fields. There is no filler or redundant explanation.

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?

Together with the annotations and mostly documented schema, the description is sufficient for a basic invocation and partially compensates for the missing output schema by listing result contents. It remains incomplete for more confident use because it omits sibling differentiation, default search scope, pagination behavior, and guidance for opaque category and letter-type identifiers.

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 description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. With 75% schema coverage, most filters and date formats are already documented, while the description does not help explain category or letter-type IDs, pagination, or how the filters interact.

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 and resource—"Search Codal disclosures"—and identifies the returned metadata and document links. It clearly concerns regulatory filings rather than general market data, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closest sibling, codal_company.

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?

Usage is implied: choose this tool when searching Codal disclosure filings. There is no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of codal_company or other siblings, nor any exclusions or recommended filtering workflow.

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