get_corporation_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral information. It mentions the data source (OpenDART) and format (XML), but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or what happens when the XML file is unavailable. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first states what the tool does (retrieves complete corporation code list), and the second provides usage context. There's zero wasted language, and the information is 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what it retrieves and its use cases. However, it lacks important contextual details about the return format beyond 'XML 파일' (XML file), such as the structure of the XML, whether it's paginated, or what specific fields are included. The absence of annotations means the description should compensate more for behavioral transparency.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and instead focuses on what the tool does and its use cases.

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 action ('조회합니다' - retrieves) and resource ('모든 공시대상 회사의 고유번호 전체 목록' - complete list of corporation codes for all disclosure-target companies). It specifies the data source (OpenDART) and format (XML file). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'get_corporation_code_by_name' which appears to be a more targeted version.

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 clear context about when to use this tool: '기업명 검색 또는 고유번호 매핑에 사용됩니다' (used for company name search or corporation code mapping). This gives practical application guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention the alternative 'get_corporation_code_by_name' tool that appears in the sibling list.

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