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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world query, so the description does not need to repeat that. Instead, it adds useful information beyond the annotations: the data source is DART disclosures, and the results include disclosure links. This context helps set expectations for trust in the data and for what the response will contain.

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 consists of two compact clauses, with the core identity (dividend schedule) stated up front and the scoping rule attached. There is no filler. However, the parenthetical DART note compresses several distinct facts, while information that actually matters for correct calling, such as the broader kinds enum, is left out.

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?

The tool has five parameters, no output schema, and no required fields, so the description needs to carry considerable context, and it does cover the data source, the output link feature, and the default scope. It is still incomplete in one important way: the schema supports AGM, EGM, and earnings events, while the description presents the tool as strictly dividend-focused. Nothing explains limit or result ordering.

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?

The description adds real meaning to the stock parameter by stating that omitting it returns results for the entire market, which the schema does not say. However, it does not explain the non-dividend values in the kinds enum (정기주총, 임시주총, 실적발표), and it does not explain limit at all; together with 60% schema description coverage, a 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?

The description clearly states that this tool returns a dividend calendar covering record dates, payment dates, and shareholder-registry dates sourced from DART disclosures, which is a specific verb-plus-resource statement. However, the schema kinds enum also permits 정기주총, 임시주총, and 실적발표 (AGM, EGM, earnings release), and the description never mentions these events. The description therefore makes this tool look narrower than it really is, though it still avoids confusion with siblings such as bond_calendar and earnings.

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?

'종목 생략 시 시장 전체' gives one concrete usage rule, namely that omitting stock broadens the query to the whole market. Beyond that, the description gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling tools such as earnings, shareholders, or bond_calendar, even though these siblings overlap with this tool's scope. The intended usage is implied rather than stated.

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