타사 선례·문안 참고

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses download consumption per precedent, caching of already-read disclosures, corrected-final basis, and the lookback_days early-stop behavior with coverage confirmation. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond the structured fields.

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 a compact intro followed by five tight bullet points, each addressing a distinct aspect (search scope, filters, versions, cost, lookback). No filler or repetition—every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite no output schema and no annotations, the description covers return format (markdown with table structure), resource consumption, data scope (J001 default, presets), and explicitly distinguishes from sibling search_disclosures. For an 8-parameter tool, this is complete and self-sufficient.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds contextual value: it explains preset defaults, corp_cls meaning ('same listing class'), exclude_corp usage, and count's download cost, which enriches the schema descriptions without being redundant.

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 precise purpose: answers 'how did other companies write this item' and details the mechanism (keyword search, company-dedup, returns original markdown text). It also distinguishes itself from search_disclosures by stating it uses corrected final versions for reference, not delay judgment.

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 explicitly says to use search_disclosures for delay judgment, naming the alternative. It also provides concrete usage context: default preset internal_transaction, filtering with corp_cls and exclude_corp, and lookback_days behavior, all of which guide when and how to use this tool.

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