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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the description's 'List' wording is consistent. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: report names are in Korean, the filing body is NOT fetched and must be accessed via the returned URL, and the output includes pagination fields. It also discloses default date ranges and error behaviors.

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 well-organized with clear sections (main statement, Args, Returns, Examples, Use/alternative, Errors) and front-loads the core purpose. It is slightly verbose because some parameter details duplicate the input schema, but each section earns its place by providing examples, error guidance, and behavioral caveats.

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 the tool's complexity (6 optional parameters, Korean filing types, pagination, and a specific output shape), the description is remarkably complete. It covers the return structure, the need to follow the URL separately, defaults, examples, and error handling, leaving no significant information gap for an agent to call it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by adding Korean translations for each disclosure type, the original DART pblntf_ty naming, and concrete examples for the corp parameter (e.g., '삼성전자', '005930'). It also clarifies defaults for date range and page/limit behavior, which adds meaningful semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List corporate disclosure filings from DART', making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also differentiates from siblings by explicitly naming get_dart_major_events and by listing the types of filings, so an agent can distinguish it from get_dart_financials or get_dart_insider_trades.

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?

It provides direct usage guidance: 'Use to track what a company disclosed' and explicitly routes keyword-filtered major events to get_dart_major_events. It also gives error-handling instructions (widen dates or drop filters for status 013; use search_dart_company for unknown companies), which clarifies when and how to adapt.

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