get_corp_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses partial matching, support for unlisted companies, and the need for exact Korean name via web search. It does not mention rate limits or read-only nature, but the behavior is well-covered.

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 brief (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, including the important usage note. No redundant or irrelevant information.

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 appropriately states what the tool returns (unique number, company name, stock code). It covers key query methods and constraints. Could optionally mention output format but not necessary.

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 100%, but the description adds extra meaning: partial matching is explicitly highlighted, stock_code is tied to listed companies, and an important note clarifies input requirements. This exceeds the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the tool provides unique number, company name, and stock code for DART-registered companies, including unlisted ones. It distinguishes from siblings like get_disclosure or get_stock_base_info by focusing on corporate identification data.

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 gives clear input guidance: use corp_name (partial match) or stock_code, and advises web searching for exact Korean name when unsure. It implicitly contrasts with other tools via sibling context, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool comparisons.

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