dart-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it filters disclosures based on requested items, returns summaries only when data exists for those items, and handles a null requested_items parameter to target all major items. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or pagination behavior, leaving gaps for a tool with 4 parameters.

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 sized and well-structured: a purpose statement, filtering behavior explanation, parameter details with examples, and return value clarification. Every sentence adds value, though the parameter section could be slightly more concise. It's front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 the tool's complexity (4 parameters, financial data filtering), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameter semantics well and explains the filtering logic, but lacks details on return format structure, error handling, and behavioral constraints. For a financial search tool with sibling alternatives, more contextual guidance would be beneficial.

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 substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains company_name format with examples, date formats (YYYYMMDD), requested_items behavior (filters disclosures, None targets all items), and provides a comprehensive list of available financial items. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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's purpose: '회사의 주요 재무 정보를 검색하여 제공하는 도구' (search and provide a company's key financial information). It specifies the resource (company financial disclosures) and verb (search/provide), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_detailed_financial_data' or 'search_json_financial_data' which likely serve similar domains.

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 context through the filtering behavior ('requested_items가 주어지면 해당 항목 관련 데이터가 있는 공시만 필터링합니다'), suggesting this tool is for finding disclosures containing specific financial items. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus the sibling tools (search_detailed_financial_data, search_json_financial_data), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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