get_opendart_tool_info

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 implies this is a read-only metadata lookup tool (checking tool info), but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or what happens on invalid input. It mentions '확인 후 진행' (check and proceed) suggesting it's a preparatory step, but lacks details on output format or error behavior.

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 a single run-on sentence in Korean that mixes instructions, purpose, and an example. It's moderately concise but lacks clear structure—front-loading is weak as it starts with a broader goal ('기업의 심층 분석을 위해') rather than the tool's immediate function. The example is helpful but embedded awkwardly.

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 1 parameter with no schema descriptions, no annotations, no output schema, and a complex context (meta-tool in a large sibling set), the description is incomplete. It hints at usage but doesn't fully explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or its role in the tool ecosystem. The example helps but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral and output details.

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 schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage. The description adds that 'tool_name' should be '정확히 입력' (entered accurately) and provides an example value ('get_corporation_info'), but doesn't explain what constitutes a valid tool name (e.g., from the sibling list), whether it's case-sensitive, or what happens if an invalid name is provided. This partially compensates for the schema gap but remains insufficient.

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 states the tool's purpose is to '확인 후 진행' (check and proceed) for '기업의 심층 분석' (in-depth corporate analysis) by verifying tool names, which is a vague purpose. It mentions '도구의 목적, 활용 흐름, 필수 파라미터, 연관 도구' (tool's purpose, usage flow, required parameters, related tools), but doesn't specify what this tool itself does (e.g., returns metadata about another tool). It distinguishes from siblings by being a meta-tool, but the purpose remains unclear.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It gives an example usage pattern ('예: get_opendart_tool_info(tool_name='get_corporation_info')') but doesn't explain the context or prerequisites for invoking it. There's no mention of when-not-to-use or what problem this tool solves compared to directly using the sibling tools listed.

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