get_filing_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it states that filings are Korean, returns a table of contents with character offsets, flattens tables to ' | '-separated rows, and returns snippets when search is used. It does not discuss permissions, rate limits, or error behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 front-loaded with the core action and identifier, then proceeds through pagination, search, table formatting, and citation guidance. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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?

The tool has no annotations, four parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and an output schema. The description covers most operational details, including output shape and search behavior, but omits max_chars and any mention of how to obtain rcept_no. It is nearly complete for correct invocation.

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 explain all four parameters. It explains rcept_no, offset, and search well, including Korean keyword examples, but leaves max_chars completely undocumented. This compensates for most of the schema gap but not all of it.

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 states a specific verb and resource: read the original text of a filing, identified by a 14-digit rcept_no. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools that search companies or retrieve financial statements, because this one retrieves filing body text.

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?

It gives concrete usage guidance: use offset to page through long filings, and pass search to get matching snippets instead of a page. It also tells the agent to translate as needed and cite url. It does not compare this tool directly with sibling filing-related tools, but the modes of use are clear.

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