OpenDART MCP Server

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. While it indicates this is a search operation (implying read-only), it doesn't explicitly state whether it's safe, whether authentication is required, what rate limits exist, or what happens with invalid parameters. The description provides functional context but lacks important behavioral details needed for safe 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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by detailed parameter documentation. While the parameter section is lengthy, each entry provides essential information. The structure is logical and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 (11 parameters, search functionality) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides good coverage. The parameter documentation is comprehensive, and the output schema will handle return value details. The main gap is the lack of behavioral context that would normally come from annotations.

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 extensive parameter documentation that fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage. It explains all 11 parameters with clear semantics, including: corp_code behavior when empty, date range constraints, enum values for pblntf_ty and corp_cls, sorting options, and pagination limits. This adds significant value beyond the basic 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's purpose: '공시검색 - 공시 유형별, 회사별, 날짜별 등 여러 조건으로 공시보고서를 검색합니다' (Search disclosures - searches disclosure reports by various conditions such as disclosure type, company, date, etc.). It specifies the verb ('검색합니다' - searches) and resource ('공시보고서' - disclosure reports). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, which appear to be specific data retrieval functions rather than general search tools.

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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, limitations, or compare it to sibling tools. The parameter documentation implies usage context but doesn't provide explicit guidelines for tool selection.

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