value_up_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool filters by DART disclosure type I (거래소공시) with a value-up keyword and parses the latest 2 original documents. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond a generic 'search' tool.

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 sections (desc, when, rule, ref) but uses line breaks and a mix of Korean and English. It is adequately sized but could be more concise, especially by merging the rule and when sections.

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 has an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the search method, filtering rule, and references to related tools. The purpose and usage are clear, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, and the description does not explain the three parameters (ticker, year, format). While ticker is required and likely represents the company, year and format are left without any guidance. The baseline is low, and the description fails to compensate.

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 verb (search and parse) and resource (기업가치제고계획 공시, value-up plan disclosures). It uses specific keywords (밸류업, DART pblntf_ty=I) that distinguish it from sibling tools like governance_report or div_full_analysis.

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 specifies when to use the tool ('기업가치제고, 밸류업, value-up 계획을 확인할 때') and in what context ('배당·지분 분석과 함께 거버넌스 전체 그림 파악에 활용'). It provides a rule of operation but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternative tools with conditions.

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