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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It states that disclosures are 'summarized in English', hinting at a translation/summarization behavior, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, auth requirements, rate limits, or what the output format is. For a tool with 5 parameters, this is insufficient.

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?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise but does not earn its place due to vagueness. It lacks necessary detail and structure, such as parameter explanations or usage context.

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?

Given 5 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to provide sufficient information for correct usage, leaving the agent with minimal understanding of how to invoke the tool.

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 0%—none of the 5 parameters (corp, report, ticker, date_to, date_from) have descriptions. The tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema. The agent has no idea what each parameter represents.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get Korean DART equity disclosures summarized in English', specifying a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_korean_company_filings by mentioning DART, a specific Korean disclosure system, and the summary in English. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from similar tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context for usage, or exclusions. The agent receives no help in deciding between this and sibling tools like get_korean_company_filings.

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