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

Annotations already establish readOnly=true and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it is a paid call at $0.02 USDC via x402 on Base, and it describes what the response contains (corrections since filing, changed terms with before/after values, affected figures). The pricing/payment disclosure is materially useful and does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Three sentences front-loaded with the core question and the outcome, followed by the input hint and a compact pricing note. No filler, though the sentence packing multiple input and output clauses is dense.

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, the description does well to describe the return payload and to disclose the paid-call model. However, for a five-parameter, zero-required-signature tool at 0% schema coverage, the unexplained 'since' and the 'corp' vs 'corp_code' ambiguity leave the agent guessing on required inputs.

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% across five parameters, so the description must compensate. It maps roughly three params (company, cited receipt numbers, report text) to natural-language concepts, but leaves the 'since' parameter entirely unexplained and does not disambiguate 'corp' from 'corp_code'. It adds partial meaning but does not fully close the coverage gap.

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 states a specific purpose via a leading question ('Which parts of a report did a later DART correction change?') and then specifies the deliverable: corrections filed since, changed terms with before/after values, and affected cited figures. It is clearly a DART-correction-impact tool, but it never names or contrasts itself with close siblings like dart_changes or kr_figure_check, so an agent cannot disambiguate by description alone.

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 implied through the input scenario ('Send a Korean listed company, the DART receipt numbers your report cites and/or the report text') and the output purpose (finding which cited figures are affected). There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no routing to alternatives among the sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer fit.

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