search_disclosures

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses default date range (90 days) and count limit (100) but does not state read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or behavior on empty results. The description is insufficient for a safe and informed invocation.

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 a single, efficient paragraph that front-loads the purpose ('공시검색 (list.json)') and then concisely explains each parameter. Every sentence adds value with no redundant or filler 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?

The description covers all parameters but omits the return format or structure (no output schema provided). It does not mention pagination beyond count, ordering, or error handling. For a search tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, additional output context would be beneficial.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description comprehensively explains each parameter: company (stock code/unique number/name), since~until (YYYYMMDD, default 90 days), kind (types with examples), final_only (boolean), and count (max 100). This adds critical meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 '공시검색' (disclosure search) and specifies the resource ('list.json'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on searching disclosures, while siblings like get_company or get_document are retrieval-focused.

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 explains parameters but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (sibling tools are listed). There is no mention of when to use search_disclosures instead of get_document, insider_holdings, etc., leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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