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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose real behavioral traits: newest-first ordering and a cost model of 1 point per returned record. It still omits pagination behavior tied to start_page and any auth/rate-limit context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence names the resource, the identifier options, the sort order, and the returned fields with no filler. Every clause carries 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?

With no output schema, listing the returned fields (report id, name, filer, filing date, correction flag, remarks, link) is valuable and the pagination parameters are covered by the schema. Only auth and pagination interaction remain unaddressed, which is minor.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters, including the accepted corp code/stock code/registry URL forms and the 250 max/25 default. The description largely restates that, adding no format or syntax detail beyond the schema; 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?

Specific verb (list) plus resource (filings of one South Korea company via DART) with the accepted identifier forms spelled out. It is unmistakably distinct from sibling run_kr_companies and run_kr_companies_search.

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 identifier forms imply the tool is for a company already identified, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as run_kr_companies_search for finding a company first. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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