search_dart_company

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: case-insensitive matching, exact vs. substring modes, returning all candidates on multiple matches (not guessing), and the include_delisting option. No contradictions.

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 with sections for strategy, critical rules, and examples. It is comprehensive but slightly lengthy; however, every sentence adds value. Front-loading the core purpose helps efficient reading.

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's complexity (4 parameters, ambiguity resolution, sibling coordination) and presence of an output schema, the description is complete: it explains purpose, usage, parameter details, return behavior, and provides examples. No gaps remain.

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 details all 4 parameters beyond the schema: query (Korean/English name), exact (exact match vs substring), limit (default 20, max 50), include_delisting (returns delisted companies). Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates.

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 searches Korean listed companies by name (Korean or English) and returns stock_code/corp_code. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_dart_filings by explicitly stating to resolve stock_code first. Examples solidify the 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 <strategy> section explicitly says to invoke this tool FIRST when a company name is given without a stock_code. The <critical_rules> specify to SKIP if a stock_code is already provided and call list_dart_filings directly. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with alternatives.

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