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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful data-availability caveat: members and trades exist only for 5% bulk-holding reports received in original text. It says nothing about failure modes or missing filings, which keeps it at 4.

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, then the input, then the return sections, and every clause carries information. The field enumeration is dense but justified given there is no output 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so by naming each section and its fields. It also flags the conditional presence of members and trades, so an agent knows what to expect before calling.

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% and the single parameter is already documented as source_url or a 14-digit rcept_no. The description restates that and adds only the hint that the value typically comes from another tool's output, which is marginal added meaning.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('공시 한 건의 세부 내역') and then enumerates the three result sections (reports, members, trades) with their contents, which clearly separates it from the list-oriented siblings such as get_holders and get_recent_changes.

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?

It gives a concrete use case ('어떤 거래로 지분이 바뀌었는지, 매수인지 출자전환인지 확인할 때') and explains how to obtain the input from other tools' source_url or rcept_no. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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