search_company

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful return behavior ('유사 기업 후보' plus the exact DART ID), but says nothing about the limit/pagination behavior or fuzzy-match behavior that the '유사 기업 후보' wording implies.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the outcome. No filler or redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so describing the return (candidate list plus exact DART number) is valuable and mostly sufficient. The only gap is the undocumented limit parameter and pagination behavior, a minor omission for a 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 coverage is only 50%: the query parameter is described, but limit has no description anywhere. The description echoes the query input types already stated in the schema (company name, stock code) without covering the limit parameter, so it only partially compensates for the gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('회사명·종목코드로 기업을 검색합니다') and adds the resolution outcome ('정확한 DART 고유번호'). It is clearly a lookup tool distinct from the financial/disclosure siblings, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the identifier-resolution step before calling get_financial_summary or search_disclosures. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when not to use it, and no reference to alternatives.

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