Resolve Korean company name to DART corp_code

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds valuable context about entity coverage (KOSPI, KOSDAQ, KONEX, unlisted), language support (Korean or English/romanized), and free tier availability. This goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: one sentence states the core purpose, and one sentence gives usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant restating of the title or schema.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, an output schema exists, and parameter descriptions are complete, the description fully covers purpose, scope, and usage context. It even mentions free tier and entity universe. There are no significant gaps for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 100%, so parameters are well-documented. The description additionally clarifies that query supports Korean characters or English/romanized names, which is not explicitly in the schema examples. It also hints at listed_only semantics through 'disambiguate same-name listed vs unlisted entities.'

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-resource pair: 'Korean company name → DART corp_code resolver.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like resolve_stock_code by focusing on DART corp_code, not stock code. The mention of 117K+ entities and listed/unlisted coverage adds precision.

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 states when to use the tool: when a Korean company name is mentioned and a DART corp_code is needed as a precondition for track_korean_filings, monitor_activist_investors, or monitor_foreign_holders. It also mentions disambiguation use. It lacks an explicit 'do not use' statement or named alternative, but the use cases are clear enough.

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