search_company

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior for listed_only ('return only companies with a stock code') and limit ('Maximum number of results'), but it does not describe the output shape, no-match behavior, or potential errors. That is adequate for a simple read-only search, but it is not rich.

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 one-sentence purpose statement is front-loaded and followed by a compact, well-organized Args block. Every sentence contributes either purpose or parameter semantics, with no fluff or redundant content.

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 three-parameter search tool, the description is nearly complete: it covers all parameters, gives examples, and explains the key flag. It lacks an explicit statement about the return format or authentication expectations, but this is a minor gap for a basic lookup operation in a broader ecosystem.

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?

Although the schema provides titles and defaults for all three parameters, the description adds substantial meaning: concrete query formats and examples, the semantic effect of listed_only, and the 1-50 range for limit, which is not present in the schema. This goes well beyond what the structured schema provides.

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 opening sentence uses a specific verb ('Search') with a clear resource ('DART companies') and lists the exact accepted query types: company name, stock code, or corp code. Examples such as 삼성전자 and 005930 make the search scope concrete and distinct from the sibling profile, statement, and disclosure tools.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need to find a DART company by name, stock code, or corp code. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the many sibling retrieval tools or provide any exclusions, so the usage guidance is largely implied rather than explicit.

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