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

Beyond the read-only and non-destructive annotations, it discloses the DART source, units in KRW 100 million, coverage beginning in 2015, and the derived nature of Q4 figures. These details help the agent interpret the data and its limitations.

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 compact, front-loaded with source, units, and coverage, then efficiently organized by frequency. The dense metric lists and parenthetical Q4 explanation all convey useful invocation or interpretation details.

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?

It covers the outputs unusually well for a definition without an output schema, making basic calls with stock and freq straightforward. However, two optional parameters remain semantically incomplete, and the lack of sibling differentiation leaves some tool-selection ambiguity.

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 substantially expands on freq beyond its short schema description, but adds nothing about years or statement. In particular, statement's IS/BS/CF effect on the returned metrics and the role or default of years remain unclear.

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 identifies financial trends from DART periodic reports and enumerates the annual and quarterly metrics supplied. It also specifies units and historical coverage, but does not explicitly distinguish the tool from siblings such as earnings or business_trend.

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 separate freq=A and freq=Q sections give clear guidance for choosing annual versus quarterly output and explain the Q4 calculation. There is no guidance on when related sibling tools would be preferable or when the optional statement parameter should be used.

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