get_disclosure_list

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

No annotations are provided. The description does not mention side effects, permissions, or limitations. While it implies a read-only listing, it lacks explicit confirmation or details on pagination, ordering, or return limits.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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 covers returned fields (metadata). However, it could mention whether results are a list, any default ordering, or maximum items. Still sufficient for a simple listing tool.

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%. The description explains the 'days' parameter (lookback period) but does not detail 'stock_code' format or constraints. Given only two parameters, the description adds partial value but not enough to fully compensate.

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 tool lists recent DART disclosures for a Korean-listed company and specifies the returned metadata (date, title, type, receipt number). It distinguishes from sibling 'get_disclosure' by mentioning how to use the returned receipt number.

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?

It provides guidance on using the result with 'get_disclosure', but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or contrast with other siblings like 'get_corp_code' or 'get_financial_statement'. However, the implicit differentiation is clear.

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