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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description goes beyond them by disclosing cost and payment mechanics ($0.005 USDC per call via x402 on Base), which materially affects whether an agent should invoke it. It still omits quota/error behavior and what happens when no corrections exist since the date.

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 tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the pricing clause second. No filler, no repetition of the name or title, and the differentiating 'before and after' detail is placed inside the core sentence.

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?

For a read-only, two-parameter retrieval tool the purpose and cost are adequately covered, but with no output schema the agent gets no sense of the return shape, pagination, or volume, and the 0%-documented parameters are left underspecified. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so the description carries the full parameter burden, but it only gestures at the parameters ('by one Korean company', 'since a date'). It gives no corp_code format (e.g., DART 8-digit code vs. name) or the expected 'since' date format, leaving both parameters ambiguous at call time.

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: corrections and withdrawals filed on OpenDART for one Korean company since a date, with the distinctive 'before and after' changed-terms framing. It is clear what the tool returns, but it never names or contrasts itself with the very close sibling dart_correction_impact, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 scenario (one company, since a date) implies when the tool is relevant, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing despite a near-identical sibling (dart_correction_impact) in the toolset. An agent must guess which of the two correction tools to call.

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