corporate_deals

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

Despite no annotations, the description reveals behavioral aspects: it uses DART list.json with keyword filtering, defaults to 24-month lookback, and explains that include_details triggers additional DART calls. It does not cover destructive behavior (likely read-only) but is transparent about data sourcing and processing.

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 structured into labeled sections (desc, when, rule, etc.) and front-loads the purpose. It is somewhat lengthy but well-organized, allowing quick scanning.

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 complexity, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description provides substantial context: data source, rules, parameter behavior, and cross-references to sibling tools. It lacks detail on output structure but is sufficient for an agent to understand usage.

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 description explains scope, include_details, and details_limit with defaults and limits, but does not cover company, start_date, end_date, or format. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 explicitly states it handles corporate deals such as equity acquisitions/disposals and subsidiary investments, and distinguishes from siblings like order_contracts and corporate_restructuring. The verb '공시' (disclose) and the listed scenarios clarify the tool's purpose.

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 a clear 'when' section listing use cases and explicitly points to alternative tools (order_contracts, corporate_restructuring) for different transaction types, helping the agent choose correctly.

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