OpenDART MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what information is provided without describing response format, pagination, error conditions, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with 3 required parameters and output schema, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 efficiently structured with a purpose statement followed by clearly formatted parameter documentation. Both sentences earn their place, though the formatting with indentation and line breaks could be more streamlined for pure text presentation.

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 3 required parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description adequately documents parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but without annotations, the description should provide more operational guidance about what 'provides information' entails in practice.

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 provides explicit parameter documentation with Korean labels and format constraints (8-digit corp_code, YYYYMMDD dates after 2015). With 0% schema description coverage, this documentation fully compensates by explaining what each parameter represents and their temporal constraints, though it doesn't explain where to obtain corp_code values.

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 provides '영업양수 결정 정보' (business acquisition decision information) from '주요사항보고서' (major matters report). It specifies the resource (business acquisition decisions) and source document, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_business_transfer_decision' or 'get_other_corp_stock_acquisition_decision' that might handle related corporate actions.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, limitations, or relationships to other tools in the extensive sibling list. Users must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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