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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: it is a paid call ($0.0045 USDC via x402 on Base or Solana) and it names the exact output fields (rceptNo, date, Korean title, English type label, DART link). It omits error/empty-result behavior, pagination semantics around limit, and whether both corp and q may be supplied together.

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 usage trigger, then input, then output, then cost — a sensible priority order with almost no filler. It is dense to the point of being slightly crammed (sibling-path and pricing squeezed onto the same lines), but every sentence 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?

No output schema exists, so the description's field list for the returned JSON is genuinely load-bearing, and the pricing/auth model is disclosed. Given five optional params and no annotations, it would be stronger if it clarified precedence between corp, q, and date and what limit does to results.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does add a small amount beyond the schema: the days range bound (1-365) and the default (30), plus a concrete example query. It says nothing about limit, and redundant corp-format detail duplicates the schema rather than extending it.

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 (recent material disclosures) and resource (South Korean listed company DART filings), and enumerates the disclosure categories covered (rights offerings, CBs, buybacks, M&A, litigation, earnings, periodic reports). It also explicitly routes summary needs to a different endpoint, so an agent can distinguish it from kr_filing_summary without opening either schema.

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 recent material disclosures..." gives an explicit trigger, and the input enumeration (corp/q with days, or date) tells the agent the two access patterns. The pointer to /v1/kr/filings/summary names the natural alternative. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g. no historical-range mode, no full-text search) or prerequisites such as resolving a company name via kr_company_resolve first.

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