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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description carries real added value: it discloses the paid model ($0.005 USDC per call via x402 on Base) and that corrections are linked to originals with before/after values plus a point-in-time view. It stops short of covering rate limits or auth beyond payment, so it is not a 5.

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 with the domain front-loaded, the content scope second, and the pricing detail last; each sentence carries information. The second sentence is somewhat information-dense but nothing is 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?

For a six-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description leaves too much unspecified: no parameter semantics, no return-shape explanation, and no differentiation from the closely related dart siblings. It describes the underlying data source well but not enough for an agent to invoke it correctly against alternatives.

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?

With six parameters at 0% schema description coverage, the description is the only place parameter meaning could come from, and it explains none of them (date, name, since, corp_code, stock_code, question). The single hint is that a company name can be given in Korean or English, which is marginal against a complete 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 names a specific resource (Korean listed-company OpenDART disclosures) and what it returns (filings, corrections linked to originals with before/after values, point-in-time view). It is clear on domain and content, but it does not differentiate itself from the near-identical siblings dart_changes and dart_correction_impact, and there is no explicit verb for the action it performs.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the obvious alternatives dart_changes or dart_correction_impact. The only usage-adjacent hint is that a company can be asked about in Korean or English, which speaks to input language rather than tool selection.

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