dart_search_company

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the tool searches by company name and returns a corp_code, which covers the core purpose. However, it does not disclose potential behavior such as partial matches, error handling, rate limits, or whether it is read-only versus destructive. The description is adequate for a simple data lookup but lacks depth.

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 two sentences plus an example, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately provides usage context and an example.

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 simple tool (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential information: what it does, when to use it, and an example. It does not explicitly describe the return value format, but for this tool it is adequately implied.

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%, so the description must compensate. It describes 'company_name' with an example ('삼성전자'), clarifying the expected input. The 'limit' parameter is not mentioned, but its default value of 10 and integer type are in the schema. The description adds significant semantic value for 'company_name'.

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 a specific verb ('검색한다') and resource ('OpenDART corp_code'), and clearly distinguishes the tool's role as a preliminary step before financial statement or disclosure queries. The example '삼성전자' clarifies the input format.

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 explicitly says to call this tool before financial statement or disclosure searches, providing a clear when-to-use directive. It does not mention alternatives, but the sibling list includes similar DART tools, so the context is sufficient.

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