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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, so the description needn't restate that; instead it adds valuable behavioral context: refresh cadence ('nightly + intraday for KR'), materiality defaults, override chains (forms overrides material_only, from/to overrides days), return shape, and 'empty result is not an error (count 0)'. It also notes metadata-only content and link to source URLs, which is more than the annotations carry.

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 long but well-structured, front-loading the core purpose before the Args list, and each section (Returns, Examples, Use when, Notices) earns its place. The only minor deduction is rhetorical filler like 'positioned as a faster-than-news primary source' and boilerplate 'Not investment advice', which are not strictly needed.

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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, an output schema, and many siblings, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly: argument semantics, defaults, overrides, return fields, examples, error behavior, and explicit routing guidance. It is hard to imagine an agent being confused after reading it.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description enriches the params meaningfully: market maps 'kr' to DART and 'us' to EDGAR; material_only defines what counts as material (8-K / KR type-B); forms gives examples ['10-K','8-K'] / ['A','B']; from/to and days behavior with override semantics are made explicit. The usage examples tie params to real use cases.

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 'Recent regulatory disclosures from the local finbridge database' and immediately narrows to the filings table with a specific default scope (material filings: US 8-K and KR 주요사항보고서). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_dart_filings/get_edgar_filings, and the 'Don't use for filing BODIES' phrase further differentiates it.

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 has an explicit 'Use when' section naming catalyst scanning and single-company filing review, plus explicit 'Don't use for' exclusions pointing to alternatives (get_dart_financials, get_edgar_financials, query_db). This tells an agent exactly when to pick this tool vs. others.

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