get_corp_code

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

No annotations provided, but description covers key behaviors: supports unlisted companies, partial name matching, and limit parameter. It implies read-only lookup. Could have mentioned response format, but the primary output (corp_code) is clear. No contradictions.

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?

Well-structured with sections for purpose, usage advice, and parameter docs. Slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. The important info is front-loaded.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers usage context, prerequisites, and parameter details. An agent can successfully invoke the tool. Minor missing details like response structure, but not critical.

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%, but description explains each parameter in detail: corp_name (partial match, Korean/English), stock_code (6-digit format with example), limit (default 20). Adds significant meaning beyond 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 clearly states the tool retrieves a DART unique code (corp_code) by company name or stock code, distinguishing it from sibling tools that require this code as a prerequisite. The verb '조회합니다' and resource are specific.

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?

Explicitly advises using this tool first to obtain corp_code before using other DART tools. Also recommends web searching for Korean name if only English name is known, improving accuracy. No explicit when-not-to-use, but context is clear.

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