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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does so: it discloses that output is a machine-generated paraphrase rather than official text, that unknown rcept_no or model outage is refused before payment, and the exact price and payment rails ($0.02 USDC on Base or Solana via x402). That is precisely the pre-call context a paying agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the use case, then labeled Input/Output/Example/Price segments, so an agent can scan quickly. It is slightly over-packed, cramming the full output field list, the payment rail, and the price into dense lines, but no sentence is truly wasted.

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 enumerates the return fields (headline, what_happened, key_figures, parties, key_dates, why_it_matters, confidence, original title, DART link), plus cost, refusal behavior, and the paraphrase caveat. Nothing an agent needs to decide or call correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter, so baseline would be 3; the description adds provenance the schema lacks — where to obtain the 14-digit rcept_no (/v1/kr/filings) and a concrete format example. It does not explain failure modes for malformed input beyond the generic refusal, keeping it just short of 5.

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?

States a specific verb+resource — an English summary of a Korean DART corporate disclosure — and the title reinforces it with what happened, key figures, parties, dates. It is clearly distinct from the sibling kr_filings, which supplies the rcept_no this tool consumes, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening schemas.

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?

"Use when an agent needs a Korean corporate disclosure in English" gives a clear selection context, and the input note pointing to /v1/kr/filings implicitly routes the agent to the listing tool first. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance (e.g. when the original Korean text or a raw filing fetch is preferable), so it is not a 5.

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