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 indicates this is a read operation ('정보를 제공합니다' - provides information) but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or what format the output takes. The description lacks critical behavioral context needed for proper tool invocation.

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 concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one documenting parameters. The parameter documentation is structured clearly with each parameter explained. There's no wasted text, though the formatting could be cleaner without the indentation issues in the Args section.

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 there's an output schema (which should document return values), the description doesn't need to explain output format. However, for a tool with 3 required parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides only basic parameter semantics and purpose. It lacks usage context, behavioral details, and doesn't leverage the sibling tool context to help the agent choose appropriately.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds basic semantics for all 3 parameters (corp_code as 8-digit unique identifier, bgn_de/end_de as start/end dates in YYYYMMDD format with 2015+ constraint). This compensates somewhat but doesn't provide examples, validation rules, or explain what happens with invalid dates. Baseline 3 is appropriate given it documents all parameters but minimally.

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: '회사분할합병 결정 - 주요사항보고서 내 회사분할합병 결정 정보를 제공합니다' (Provides company division/merger decision information from major item reports). It specifies the verb ('제공합니다' - provides) and resource ('회사분할합병 결정 정보' - company division/merger decision information), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_division_decision or get_merger_decision.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple related sibling tools (get_division_decision, get_merger_decision, get_division_reg, get_merger_reg) but no indication of how this tool differs or when it should be preferred. The parameter documentation implies date-range filtering but doesn't explain context for usage.

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