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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by clarifying the output includes current and prior period amounts and that data goes back to 2015, offering behavioral context beyond 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 with no wasted words; front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage guidance, then pairing recommendation. Excellent conciseness and structure.

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 high schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (income statement, balance sheet, cash flow items) and example line items. It could mention output format, but for fundamental analysis it is sufficient.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds contextual value (e.g., pairing suggestion, example line items) but does not significantly deepen parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states that the tool retrieves key financial line items from Korean company periodic reports, specifying the types of statements and periods. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like dart_company_info or dart_insider_holdings, but those have obviously different purposes, so the purpose is clear.

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 description advises using the tool for fundamental analysis on KOSPI/KOSDAQ filers and suggests pairing with ecos_get_series for macro context. This provides practical guidance, though it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool mentions.

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