list_disclosure_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source and that only_with_metric filters items, but does not mention read-only nature, response format, or pagination. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise with a clear header, example queries, and parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, though some parameter details could be more directly aligned.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality well. It provides source context and parameter semantics for the key filters, making it actionable for an AI agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It describes disclosure_type, schedule, metric_category, and only_with_metric with usage details, but omits query, group, and limit. Partial coverage.

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 ('조회합니다' = query) and resource ('경영공시 50개 항목 카탈로그'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on different aspects like institutions or metrics.

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?

Provides explicit example queries (e.g., '재무 공시는 언제 올라와?', '수시공시 항목만') that illustrate when to use this tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives.

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