dart_get_company_disclosures

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, what the response format is (which is important since there is no output schema), whether it paginates, or any limitations (e.g., maximum date range, rate limits). The agent has little beyond the parameter types.

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 short—one sentence. It is front-loaded with the purpose (조회한다). However, it quotes length is reasonable, but it lacks structure (no paragraphs or lists) and could include the date format inline. It is not verbose, but it is under-informative, not just concise.

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 tool with 3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not tell the agent what the response will look like, how to interpret corp_code, or any usage constraints. The date format instruction is helpful but insufficient given the complexity of the Korean DART system (which has specific code formats and pagination).

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 0%, meaning the parameters have no descriptions other than their types. The tool description only explains the date format (YYYYMMDD) but does not explain what corp_code refers to (likely a DART company code), nor how to obtain it. It adds minimal value over the 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 it retrieves (조회한다) a list of company disclosures (회사 공시 목록) within a date range. The verb '조회한다' (retrieve) and the resource '회사 공시 목록' (company disclosure list) are specific. It is distinguishable from sibling tools, which focus on financial statements, exchange rates, or general search.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool compared to siblings like dart_get_financial_statements or dart_search_company. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing a valid corp_code from dart_search_company, which would be critical for an agent to use it correctly.

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