get_corp_codes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral traits: the tool downloads the entire list (110k+ entries) and filters locally, and it does not return the full list if no parameters are given. This transparency helps the agent understand performance and data handling.

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: an introductory sentence, a paragraph explaining the limitation, and a bullet-like argument list. It is clear and informative, though a bit verbose; still, every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description does not specify the return format (e.g., list of objects with corp_code and name). While the purpose is clear, the agent might benefit from knowing what fields are returned. For a lookup tool with many sibling tools, completeness is adequate but not perfect.

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 fully explain parameters. It does so: corp_name is a partial match (case-insensitive, Korean/English), stock_code is an exact 6-digit code. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's minimal type and default.

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 explicitly states the tool searches for DART unique codes (corp_code) by company name or stock code. The verb 'search' and resource 'DART 고유번호(corp_code)' are specific and clear, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools which retrieve specific financial reports.

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 clear usage context: it explains that the DART API does not support direct company name search, so the tool downloads the entire list and filters server-side. It also states that at least one parameter must be specified and warns that omitting both will not return the full list. This gives good guidance on when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly compare to siblings.

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