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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful domain behavior: that corrections are linked to originals with before/after values and that a point-in-time view is available. It still omits return shape, pagination, and result-size limits, so it is a solid but partial addition.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the resource scope is front-loaded before the language note. The colon-list packs several distinct capabilities into one clause without padding.

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 and three totally undocumented parameters, the description should carry more weight than it does — it never explains what a returned disclosure record contains or how the natural-language question maps to results. It is adequate for an agent to know the domain, but not enough to invoke confidently with date filters.

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% for all three parameters. The description only hints that the input is a natural-language question in Korean or English; the 'since' and 'to' bounds are never explained as date filters, and no format or syntax guidance is given for any parameter.

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?

Names a specific resource (Korean listed-company disclosures from OpenDART) and enumerates the content types it covers: filings, corrections with before/after values, point-in-time view. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling dart_correction_impact, which the 'corrections linked to originals with before/after values' clause appears to overlap with.

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 only guidance is 'Ask in Korean or English,' which is an input hint, not a when-to-use rule. Nothing says when to choose this over dart_correction_impact or kr_figure_check, and no exclusions or prerequisites (e.g. date range required, listed-company scope only) are stated.

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