OpenDART MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an information-providing tool ('정보를 제공합니다'), which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly confirm this. It doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens when parameters are invalid. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in transparency.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It begins with a clear purpose statement, then provides parameter documentation in a structured format. Every sentence earns its place by either stating the tool's function or explaining parameters. The only minor improvement would be separating the purpose statement from parameter documentation more clearly, but overall it's efficient and front-loaded.

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 (which handles return values), no annotations, and 3 parameters with excellent description coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It clearly explains what the tool does and documents all parameters thoroughly. The main gaps are the lack of behavioral context (no annotations to rely on) and no usage guidance, but the parameter documentation is comprehensive and the purpose is clear.

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 excellent parameter semantics despite 0% schema description coverage. It clearly explains all three parameters: 'corp_code: 고유번호(8자리)' (unique 8-digit code), 'bsns_year: 사업연도(4자리, 2015년 이후)' (business year, 4 digits, 2015 or later), and 'reprt_code: 보고서코드 (11013:1분기, 11012:반기, 11014:3분기, 11011:사업보고서)' (report codes with specific mappings). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions and adds meaningful context beyond what the bare schema provides.

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: '사모자금의 사용내역 - 정기보고서 내 사모자금의 사용내역 정보를 제공합니다' (Private placement fund usage - provides private placement fund usage information within periodic reports). It specifies the verb ('제공합니다' - provides) and resource ('사모자금의 사용내역 정보' - private placement fund usage information), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_public_offering_fund_usage', which appears to be a related but distinct tool.

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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparison with sibling tools like 'get_public_offering_fund_usage' that appears to handle public offering fund usage. The only contextual information is that it works with '정기보고서' (periodic reports), but this doesn't constitute usage guidance.

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