search_disclosures

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the return fields ('receipt numbers, titles, filers, and dates') and available filter dimensions, which goes beyond the tool name. It does not mention pagination behavior or rate limits, but the core read-only search behavior is well described.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No filler or redundant 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?

The tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, and the description covers the main filters and return fields. However, it omits pagination details, parameter formats, and explicit guidance on when to prefer siblings or combined use, leaving some gaps for a fully self-sufficient description.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for date range (bgn_de/end_de), corp_code, disclosure type (pblntf_ty), and market (corp_cls), but does not mention pagination parameters (page_no, page_count) or explain enum values. It partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions but not fully.

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 ('Search') with a clear resource ('Korean company disclosures filed with the FSS') and explicitly lists return fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_company_info and get_financial_summary, which target different data.

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 description implies usage: use this tool to find disclosures filtered by date, company, type, and market. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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