OpenDART MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what information is provided, without mentioning whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the output takes. For a tool with 3 required parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 appropriately sized with a clear purpose statement followed by a structured parameter explanation. The two-sentence structure is efficient, though the Korean-to-English transition in the purpose statement could be slightly smoother. Every element serves a purpose with minimal waste.

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 that an output schema exists (which handles return values), the description covers the basic purpose and parameters adequately. However, for a tool with 3 required parameters and no annotations, it should ideally provide more behavioral context about what the tool actually does with those parameters and what kind of information is returned, even with an output schema available.

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 provides clear parameter semantics in the Args section, explaining that corp_code is an 8-digit unique identifier and that bgn_de/end_de are start/end dates in YYYYMMDD format with a 2015+ constraint. With 0% schema description coverage, this documentation fully compensates by adding essential format and constraint information not present in the bare 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 the tool's purpose: '영업정지 - 주요사항보고서 내 영업정지 정보를 제공합니다' (Business suspension - provides business suspension information within major matter reports). It specifies both the verb ('provides') and resource ('business suspension information'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools beyond the specific domain of business suspensions.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While sibling tools like 'get_document' or 'search_disclosure' might overlap in accessing corporate information, there's no explicit comparison or context for choosing this specific business suspension tool over other disclosure-related tools.

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