search_disclosures

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavioral context: the default recent-30-day scope, that pagination state is preserved, and that document bodies are not fetched (only metadata/links). That is meaningful beyond the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the default-window and no-body-read details. Slightly terse on the pagination phrase, but efficient overall.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the description conveys the general return shape (list + links, no body) but leaves the return structure, pagination fields, and most parameter semantics unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps given the 6-parameter surface.

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 only 33% across 6 parameters, so the description is expected to compensate, but it explains none of them (page, page_size, start_date, end_date are undocumented, and the company/type formats are left to the schema). Only the implicit 30-day default hints at the date parameters.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: retrieving corporate disclosure lists and original-document links per company. It is distinguishable from the financial-statement siblings (get_financial_summary, get_full_financial_statements), though it does not explicitly name what search_company does differently.

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?

Gives an implied usage context (a per-company disclosure search with a default 30-day window) but offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and does not name an alternative tool for reading full document bodies, which it gestures at with 'does not read the body'.

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