get_financial_statements

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that it calls Open DART's key-accounts endpoint and returns core line items for both CFS and OFS statements, and it enumerates report types. It does not discuss API-key prerequisites, rate limits, or error behavior, but for a read-only fetch that is not a critical omission.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and uses a clean Args block. The Korean translations and endpoint detail add some length, but they are informative for Open DART users; no sentences are wasted.

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?

Together with the output schema, the description is complete for an agent to invoke correctly. It covers all 4 arguments, their formats, the default report_type, the data source, and the scope of figures returned. No required calling information is missing.

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%, but the description fully compensates: every parameter is documented with format, allowed values, and examples. The corp_code example ('Samsung Electronics is 00126380'), four-digit year convention, and report_type mapping make the tool callable without external documentation.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Get') plus resource ('key financial-statement accounts') and a clear scope ('for a company across a range of years'). It also names the exact Open DART key-accounts endpoint and lists the figures returned, which distinguishes it from the sibling get_full_financial_statement.

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 phrase 'key financial-statement accounts' and endpoint choice imply this is for key figures rather than the full statement, and the sibling get_full_financial_statement is an obvious alternative. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over that sibling or states exclusions, so it stops short of full guidance.

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