get_company_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does indicate that this is a retrieval operation from an external source (Open DART) and implies read-only behavior, which is accurate. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, API key prerequisites, rate limits, or failure modes, which are relevant for calling an external API.

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 and well-structured. The main purpose is stated in the first sentence, followed by a clearly labeled Args section with the parameter explanation. There is no redundant content, and the example adds tangible value without bloat.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the core essentials are present: what it does and what the input is. However, it lacks contextual signals such as prerequisites (e.g., DART API key), how to obtain the corp_code, and relationship to sibling tools like get_company_profile_by_query. This is a clear gap that an agent would need to resolve elsewhere.

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?

Even though schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates for the single parameter. It specifies that corp_code must be an eight-digit DART corporation code and provides a concrete example (Samsung Electronics is 00126380), giving an agent precise format and context to construct a valid call.

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 and resource: 'Get official company information from Open DART.' It clearly indicates that the input is an eight-digit corporation code, which distinguishes it from the sibling get_company_profile_by_query. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast itself with that sibling, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains the parameter and gives an example; it does not mention that a user might need to search for a company code first or when to prefer get_company_profile_by_query. The agent is left to infer usage context from the tool name and sibling list.

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