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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: results are similarity-ranked (do not trust the first item), count is capped by limit rather than being the total, 0 hits adds notes, and preferred/ETF codes have specific mapping behavior.

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?

Well-structured with [Purpose]/[Usage]/[Response]/[Rules] sections and the critical 'first call' note front-loaded. It is on the long side, but each section carries distinct information (routing, examples, return shape, ranking caveat) rather than repetition.

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 carries the full burden of explaining return values (stock_code semantics, count capped by limit, notes on zero hits) and the ranking caveat. Combined with the schema and annotations, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: query accepts a Korean/English name, a 6-char ticker, or an 8-digit corp_code, and it shows limit in action (limit=20) and warns that common names may overflow the default. This goes beyond the schema's terse field descriptions.

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 ('회사명·종목코드로 DART 법인 식별자(corp_code)의 후보를 확인') and explicitly distinguishes from siblings, routing 업종·data to get_company_profile and disclosure listings to search_disclosures. An agent can tell this apart from every sibling without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly names the trigger condition ('first call when a company's corp_code is unknown') plus a disambiguation use case, and gives four concrete input→workflow examples (e.g. '카카오' → get_financials). It also states what the tool is NOT for, pointing to the right alternatives.

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