공시 검색

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals non-obvious traits: batch mode does full-period collection with dedup/count, large ranges return range_too_large with split intervals, truncated/partial_results diagnostics mean incomplete results, and pre-correction original filings are included. This is substantial and prevents misinterpretation of duplicated or incomplete data.

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 purpose and uses four compact bullets covering mode behavior, error handling, diagnostics, and correction inclusion. Every sentence carries operational information with no filler.

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 tool with 15 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main operational pitfalls: splitting large ranges, interpreting incomplete-result diagnostics, and handling pre-correction filings. It does not describe the result structure beyond diagnostics, but the schema and behavioral notes together give an agent enough to invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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 schema already documents all parameters, including defaults, enums, patterns, and warnings such as the last_report_only caution. The description adds some context about mode behavior and delay determination, but mostly reinforces schema-level information rather than adding new parameter-level meaning.

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 '공시를 검색합니다' (searches disclosures), a specific verb and resource, and adds that six FTC corporate-group presets are built in. This clearly separates it from read_disclosure as a search operation, though it does not explicitly name siblings or exclusions.

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 provides internal usage guidance: page vs batch modes, dedup/count behavior, and explicit instructions to split large ranges when range_too_large is returned. However, it does not state when to prefer this over sibling tools like read_disclosure or the audit/check tools, so cross-tool routing is left implied.

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