declared_coverage_gaps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, but it only states that the tool returns gaps. It does not reveal behavioral traits such as read-only/idempotent behavior, the shape of the returned gaps, data freshness, or whether any external/network dependency exists.

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?

One sentence front-loads the action and object, with no filler or repetition of the tool name. It is as concise as a zero-parameter tool's description should be.

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?

The description is sufficient to select the tool, but with no output schema it does not explain what a returned 'gap' looks like, and the acronyms MFDS/CRIS are not expanded. More detail about the output format or the meaning of 'coverage gaps' would make it complete.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered and no parameter documentation is needed. Per the baseline for a no-parameter tool, the description need not compensate for missing parameter 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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a concrete resource ('mandatory Korean regulatory coverage gaps'), naming the regulators MFDS and CRIS. This clearly separates it from the sibling DART/KRX tools, which address company data, disclosures, and stock trading.

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 intended use is implied: an agent would call this when coverage gaps under Korean regulations are relevant. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or reference to alternatives, though the sibling tools are distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.

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