get_disclosure_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves historical data (implied read-only) and mentions pagination behavior, which is useful. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what the return format looks like (no output schema). This leaves gaps for a tool with 5 parameters.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently cover the main purpose and pagination behavior. There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from usage notes).

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 (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and mentions pagination, but lacks details on return values, error handling, or performance characteristics. Without an output schema, the agent won't know what data structure to expect, which is a significant gap.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters (corp_code, bgn_de, end_de, page_no, pblntf_ty). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, formatting nuances, or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: '조회하여 파악' (retrieve to understand) corporate disclosure history by date, covering management activities, financial status, and governance changes. It specifies the resource ('기업의 전체 공시 이력') and verb ('조회하여 파악'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_disclosure_document', which might retrieve specific documents rather than a list.

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 mentions pagination ('여러 페이지가 있을 경우 페이지 번호를 바꿔 조회') as a usage note, but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to other disclosure-related tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'get_disclosure_document').

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