DART-MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully specifies the critical output format (YYYYMMDD) and that it returns a string, but omits other behavioral traits such as timezone handling, caching behavior, or side effects. For a simple read-only date retrieval, this is minimally acceptable but not comprehensive.

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 appropriately brief with a clear structure: one-sentence purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. The Returns section is particularly valuable given the absence of an output schema. The Args section mentioning 'ctx' is slightly redundant since it's not part of the invocation schema, but does not significantly detract from clarity.

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 zero input parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential contextual information: the specific date format (YYYYMMDD) and the fact that it returns a string. While it could benefit from timezone clarification, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand what will be returned upon 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?

The input schema contains zero parameters (empty properties object), which establishes a baseline score of 4. The description mentions an optional 'ctx' argument in the Args section, but this appears to be framework-internal context not exposed in the JSON schema, so it does not add confusion for the AI agent invoking the tool. No additional parameter semantics were needed beyond the empty schema.

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 the tool 'returns current date in YYYYMMDD format' (현재 날짜를 YYYYMMDD 형식으로 반환하는 도구), providing a specific verb (반환하는/returns) and resource (현재 날짜/current date). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling search tools (search_business_information, search_disclosure, etc.) by being the only date retrieval utility versus data search operations.

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 description implies usage through its name and purpose statement (use when you need the current date), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives or how it relates to the search workflows. It lacks prerequisites or contextual triggers that would help an agent decide to invoke this before filtering search results by date.

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