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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context: 'refreshed nightly + intraday for KR', 'Filing metadata only; bodies are at the linked source URLs', and error handling ('empty result is not an error'). This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them, though it doesn't exhaustively detail all 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 long but well-structured: purpose first, then Args, Returns, Examples, Use/Don't use, Notes, Errors. Every section earns its place, with no fluff. Front-loaded with the core purpose and scoping, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's role and call it correctly.

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 9 optional parameters, interactions, and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: return format, filtering semantics, examples, usage guidance, and error handling. It also differentiates from numerous siblings. No critical gaps remain for correct invocation.

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 schema documents each parameter. However, the description adds valuable interactions: material_only default behavior (8-K / KR type-B), forms overriding material_only, and days vs from/to precedence. Examples illustrate parameter combinations, enhancing the agent's ability to use them correctly beyond schema alone.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Recent regulatory disclosures from the local finbridge database (filings table)'. It clearly distinguishes itself as a unified feed across KR and US markets, and explicitly contrasts with sibling tools like get_dart_filings / get_edgar_filings by positioning as a faster-than-news primary source focused on material events.

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 states 'Use when: scanning for catalysts / breaking corporate events, or one company's recent filings' and 'Don't use for filing BODIES (open the url) or for financial statement values (get_dart_financials / get_edgar_financials / query_db)'. Names alternative tools and provides clear conditions, leaving nothing to inference.

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