get_shareholder_return_disclosures

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the underlying Open DART endpoints, the fact that it fetches filings filed within the date range, and that disclosure_type 'all' fetches every type in one call. This is solid behavioral context, though it omits potential error conditions, pagination, or rate-limit behavior.

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 tool's purpose, then the data source, then parameter details. Although the disclosure_type list is long, every entry adds necessary meaning because the schema defines no enum. The Args block is well organized and each sentence earns its place.

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 4-parameter tool with no schema descriptions and no annotations, the description is quite complete: it covers all parameters, defaults, formats, and supported disclosure types. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not the description's responsibility. Minor gaps remain around error handling, invalid codes, and whether all is truly one request, but nothing critical is missing for invoking the tool correctly.

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 fully compensates. It explains corp_code with an example, start_date and end_date format variants with examples, and disclosure_type with the complete enumeration of allowed values plus Korean labels and the 'all' default. This is exactly the information an agent needs to populate parameters correctly.

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 fetches shareholder-return-related disclosure decisions over a date range, specifically board decisions on capital increases, reductions, and treasury stock activity. It is specific about resource and scope, and the listed disclosure types help distinguish it from dividend or general search siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicitly stated: the description indicates it is for fetching certain board decision disclosures from Open DART within a date range. It does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus similar sibling tools like get_dividend_info or search_disclosures, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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