정기공시 연간 캘린더

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 handles it exceptionally. It states no key is required (auth), discloses business-day adjustment including substitute holidays, explains the quarterly reference-period logic (the most common error point), reports same-day collisions, and flags that absence from the calendar does not mean no duty exists. This is a model of behavioral transparency for an unannotated tool.

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 front-loaded: purpose first, then bulleted contents, then a critical warning. It is somewhat long, but every segment earns its place — the items list, business-day adjustment, reference-period caveat, and the not_in_calendar warning are all operationally important. The bullet-point formatting aids scannability for an agent.

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?

For a complex tool with 7 parameters and intricate business logic (business-day adjustment, reference-period semantics, collision detection), the description is remarkably complete. Since there is no output schema, the description explains what the agent will receive: chronological deadlines with D-days, per-item content (items), reference dates, and collision alerts. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds contextual value (what items appear, reference periods, collision reporting) but does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond the schema. The 'duties' keys are listed only in the schema, not reiterated in the description. The schema already documents each parameter clearly, so the description's minimal parameter-specific contribution is acceptable.

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 opens with a concrete verb+resource ('answers what must I disclose this year and when') and precisely scopes what it returns: fixed-calendar periodic disclosure deadlines computed with D-days, sorted chronologically. It clearly differentiates from siblings like search_disclosures (searching) and check_disclosure_duty (checking a specific duty) by focusing exclusively on fixed-deadline periodic items, listing each covered duty explicitly.

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 gives strong usage context: it covers periodic disclosures with fixed calendar deadlines and explicitly warns that cause-based events (large-scale internal transactions, unlisted company important matters within 7 business days) are NOT on the calendar and require not_in_calendar. It doesn't name an alternative sibling by name, but the caveat effectively routes the agent away from this tool for event-driven disclosures. The quarter-reference caveat also guides correct interpretation of results.

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