search_disclosures

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses the endpoint, the limited return payload, and the post-fetch keyword behavior, which is genuinely useful. It does not cover error cases, API key requirements, or rate limits, but for a straightforward search tool the core behavior is well disclosed.

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 the most important limitation (metadata only). The parameter list is structured and every line adds value, with example values and format hints. No fluff or repetition.

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?

The description covers the purpose, parameters, output scope, and the key alternative tool. An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be repeated. Minor gaps include no mention of authentication prerequisites or error behavior, but these are secondary for correctly selecting and invoking this search 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 fully compensate. It does: it explains corp_code with a concrete example, gives date format variants, documents every pblntf_ty category code, and clarifies that keyword is applied after fetching since the API lacks title search. This is far richer than the bare input schema.

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 (공시검색) within a date range.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_disclosure_document_text by stating that this tool returns metadata only, while that sibling reads filing content. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does and how it differs from related 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 explicitly routes the agent: use get_disclosure_document_text with a receipt_no to read content, since this tool only returns metadata. It also explains that keyword filtering is applied client-side with no API-side title search, which informs usage expectations. This is direct, practical when-to-use guidance.

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