list_report_revisions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose meaningful traits: it refuses to judge which version is correct, states it reveals the tool/server's default version rule, and returns items in filing-date order. It omits auth/permission and rate-limit context, but for a read-style enumeration those are minor.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then labeled Args/Returns sections; the ⚠ warning paragraph is somewhat long but earns its place by preventing misreading of 'amendment' as 'error'. Efficient overall, minor verbosity in the rationale sentences.

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?

Covers all three parameters despite zero schema coverage, explains the non-judgment/default-rule behavior, and the existing output schema covers return values. A small gap remains around what the returned 'version mark' precisely means, but nothing essential to invoking it is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate and it does fully: company_name accepts a name or 6-digit stock code, year is a 4-digit fiscal year defaulting to the prior year when empty, and report_type enumerates annual/half/q1/q3. This adds meaning the bare schema entirely lacks.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — enumerating the revisions/versions (원본 + 정정본) of a fiscal year's periodic report — which is a distinct activity from the sibling list/search/analyze tools. An agent can immediately tell this is a version-enumeration tool rather than a content reader.

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?

Gives clear usage context: it exists because the same report is filed multiple times and you need to know whether figures came from the original or the final amendment. No explicit when-not or named alternative is given, so it stops short of a 5.

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