search_disclosures

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does this well. It states that the tool uses a specific Open DART endpoint, returns only filing metadata, and that keyword matching happens after the API response. These behavioral traits go well beyond the parameter schema and help set accurate expectations.

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 a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by a useful distinction from a sibling, and then a structured Args section. There is no filler or redundant repetition of the schema; each part serves a purpose.

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 an output schema exists and all parameters are thoroughly documented, the description is complete for effective use. It clarifies the return type, names the follow-up tool for content retrieval, and discloses the local filtering limitation. No critical operational gap remains for an agent to misuse the tool.

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 must compensate, and it does. Every parameter is explained: corp_code includes a concrete example, date formats are given, pblntf_ty lists all valid Korean category codes, and keyword's post-fetch behavior is clarified. This is exemplary parameter 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 and resource: 'Search DART disclosure filings within a date range.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_disclosure_document_text by stating that it returns filing metadata only and that content retrieval belongs to the other tool. This gives an agent immediate clarity about the tool's scope.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use a different tool: use get_disclosure_document_text with a receipt_no to read content. It also explains that keyword filtering is applied locally after fetching because DART has no title-search parameter, which prevents false expectations about API-side filtering. This is clear guidance for tool selection and invocation.

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