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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the exact response structure, the graceful-degradation rule (recent_events is null when the disclosure lookup fails), and a concrete cost of 30 points per call.

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 purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the same content is stated twice — once in English and once in Korean — so roughly half the text is duplication rather than new information. The remaining sentences about response keys, null behavior, and cost each earn their 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of conveying return values, and it does: it names company, recent_events, risk_flags, and insights, plus the failure-mode null. For a one-parameter read-only tool this is close to complete; only the semantics of insights and risk_flags go unexplained.

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?

With a single required parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents corpCode as an 8-digit company identifier. The description adds nothing further about the identifier's format or sourcing, so the baseline of 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 names a specific verb and resource ("Build a Korean company snapshot") and enumerates the contents: profile with listing status and age, 90-day disclosure events, and risk flags. That is enough to distinguish it in substance from dart_disclosure or dart_financials, though those siblings are never named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the aggregation framing suggests it is the tool to reach for when a one-page composite view is wanted rather than raw disclosures or financials. There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative to route against, so the agent must infer the choice.

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