disclosures_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the global scope, which is useful, but does not mention safety (e.g., read-only nature), rate limits, pagination, or response behavior. The reference to fca_nsm and cvm is more about tool availability than the tool's own runtime behavior.

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 two concise sentences with no redundant wording. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second adds valuable cross-references to alternatives, earning its place.

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?

The description conveys the core purpose and scope effectively, but it lacks depth in parameter semantics and usage exclusions. Given that there is an output schema, return values are covered, but the source parameter's meaning is only implied, and the tool's behavior under different source values is not explained. Overall, it is minimally adequate but not fully complete for a search tool with multiple sources.

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 0%, and the description does not explain `keyword`, `limit`, or `source` explicitly. The only indirect hint is that fca_nsm and cvm are mentioned, which may correspond to the `source` parameter, but this is left implicit. This is inadequate for a tool with three 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Full-text search') and the specific resource ('every issuer's disclosures, not scoped to one company'). This distinguishes it from company-specific search tools like company_facts or company_research_brief. Mentioning fca_nsm and cvm as similar global search tools further clarifies its unique position among siblings.

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 phrase 'not scoped to one company' clearly implies use for cross-company searches, providing context. It also names alternative tools (fca_nsm, cvm) that support similar global search. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name company-specific alternatives, so it lacks a full exclusionary guide.

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