Codal announcements

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds genuinely new context: it is a Mofid-side proxy for Codal rather than a direct Codal reader, and it specifies the shape of each returned row (title, publish time, company, period, links to Codal page, PDF, attachments). The default window is disclosed via the schema rather than the prose.

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 lines, front-loaded with what is searched, then the source/routing caveat, then the return shape. No sentence is redundant with the name or with structured fields.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly spends its final line on what a row contains, which is what a caller most needs to interpret results. It is a zero-required-parameter, read-only search tool whose pagination and date defaults live in the schema, so little else is owed. Slightly incomplete on whether results are Persian-only or how attachments are fetched.

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 100%, so every parameter (limit, offset, symbol, to_date, from_date, report_type) is already documented in the schema. The description only restates the filter axes as 'company, report type and date' without adding format, defaults, or example values beyond what the schema supplies. Baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Search Codal filings') and enumerates the document classes covered (financial statements, board notices, AGM invitations, monthly activity), plus the three filter axes. It separates itself from br_search and from codal-mcp, but does not state how it differs from filing-adjacent siblings such as br_news or br_stock_events.

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?

'Use br_search if unsure of the symbol' is an explicit routing rule that prevents a wasted call. 'Source: Mofid only ... codal-mcp reads Codal directly' clarifies the data provenance decision. There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g., use br_news for press coverage rather than filings).

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