resolve_dart_company

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the core behavior: resolving a company to a code, implying a lookup/read-style operation. It does not explain behavior around ambiguous matches, simultaneous inputs, or response format, but the basic operation is stated.

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?

A single focused sentence with no filler. The action and output are front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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 simple two-parameter resolver, the description plus the oneOf schema gives a minimally viable picture. Still, there are no annotations and no output schema, and the description omits guidance on which parameter to prefer, so an agent must infer details from the schema alone.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds domain context but does not explain the roles of stock_code and corp_name, Korean-name expectations, or precedence between the two parameters. The oneOf schema partially covers this, but the description itself does not.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('resolve'), a specific resource ('Korean listed company'), and a specific output ('OpenDART corporation code'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like dart_company_overview, dart_disclosures, and krx_daily_trade.

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 purpose implies when to use it: when the agent needs an OpenDART corporation code for a Korean listed company. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it relates to the sibling tools.

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