OpenDART MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does ('provides employee status information') without mentioning any behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what format the output takes. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a clear two-part structure: a purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place, though the formatting with indentation could be cleaner. The information is front-loaded with the main purpose stated first.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and the description provides excellent parameter semantics, the description is reasonably complete for a simple lookup tool. However, it lacks behavioral context about the operation (read-only vs. mutation, potential side effects, etc.) which would be important for an agent to use it correctly, especially with no annotations to provide this information.

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 excellent parameter semantics despite 0% schema description coverage. It clearly explains all three parameters: 'corp_code: 고유번호(8자리)' (unique 8-digit code), 'bsns_year: 사업연도(4자리, 2015년 이후)' (business year, 4 digits, after 2015), and 'reprt_code: 보고서코드 (11013:1분기, 11012:반기, 11014:3분기, 11011:사업보고서)' (report codes with specific mappings). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions and adds meaningful context beyond what the bare schema provides.

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: '직원 현황 - 정기보고서 내 직원 현황 정보를 제공합니다' (Employee status - provides employee status information within regular reports). It specifies the verb '제공합니다' (provides) and resource '직원 현황 정보' (employee status information), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_executive_status' or 'get_outside_director_status' which might provide related but different personnel information.

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. While it mentions the context of '정기보고서' (regular reports), it doesn't specify when this tool is appropriate compared to other employee-related tools in the sibling list or what prerequisites might be needed. There's no mention of alternatives or exclusions.

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