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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly/destructive/openWorld/idempotent); the description adds substantial behavior beyond that — superseded_by semantics, withdrawn:true meaning, version_check incompleteness, date = 접수일 with 정정 falling outside the window, and the crucial fetch_failed/truncated_note = "unconfirmed" ≠ "none" rule. It also flags the 사모/일괄신고서/소액공모 out-of-scope boundary.

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?

Front-loaded and clearly sectioned ([Purpose]/[Usage]/[Response]/[Rules]), so an agent can parse it quickly. It is dense and longer than strictly necessary, with some statements echoing the parameter schema, but every block carries distinct information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden and does: it enumerates the filings[] shape and its sections (general·securities·underwriters·fund_use·sellers·put_right·issued_securities·parties), explains ordering, date semantics, raw-string values, and omitted fields. Edge cases (superseded, withdrawn, incomplete versions, unconfirmed types) are all covered.

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 every parameter (corp format, date formats, limit truncation, statement_type enums and aliases). The description's only added parameter value is the single worked Usage example, which mostly restates what the schema says. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (증권신고서 주요정보 6종 조회) and enumerates exactly what is returned (모집·매출 조건, 인수인, 자금 사용목적, 합병·분할 조건). The [Purpose] block explicitly routes sibling cases: board decisions → get_corporate_event, listing scans → search_disclosures(kind="issuance"), narrative risk → download_document.

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 [Usage] block gives a concrete natural-language→parameter mapping example ("대한항공 유상증자 조건" → corp="대한항공", statement_type="equity"). It also states when NOT to use it by naming three alternative tools for adjacent intents, so selection is unambiguous.

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