resolve_corp_code

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

The description discloses the sorting order (listed companies first, then exact match, then short name) and notes that it returns candidates for ambiguous queries. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it covers key behavioral traits adequately, though it could mention error handling or empty results.

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 two sentences, both highly informative and front-loaded. The first sentence states the action and resource, the second provides guidance. No unnecessary words.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately implies the return of candidate matches and the sorting order. It could be more explicit about the response format (e.g., list of corp_codes with names), but the intended use case 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description. The tool description adds value by specifying the allowed input types for the query parameter (company name, stock code, corp_code) and the usage context, which goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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: to look up the OpenDART corp_code by company name or stock code. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting that other tools automatically resolve company names, but this tool is for manual candidate checking when results are ambiguous.

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 explicitly provides usage guidelines: it explains that company names are automatically resolved in other tools, and this tool should only be used when automatic resolution results are ambiguous. This helps the agent decide when to invoke this tool versus relying on automatic resolution.

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