get_accounting_auditor_opinion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description implies analysis but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only retrieval, a computational analysis, or something else. It doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, output format, or any behavioral traits beyond the vague analytical purpose.

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, concise phrase in Korean. It's front-loaded with the core concept but could be more structured for clarity. While efficient, it sacrifices specificity for brevity, making it somewhat under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 complexity (3 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how the analysis is performed, or any behavioral context. For a tool that seems to involve financial risk analysis, more detail is needed to guide effective use.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for each parameter (corp_code, bsns_year, reprt_code). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.

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 '감사의견 및 강조사항을 통한 회계 신뢰성 및 지속가능성 리스크 분석' (Analysis of accounting reliability and sustainability risk through audit opinions and emphasis points) states a general purpose but lacks specificity. It doesn't clearly state what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieve, analyze, or generate reports) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools that also handle financial/audit data. The description is more about the analysis outcome than the tool's function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. Given the many sibling tools related to financial disclosures and audits, the absence of differentiation leaves the agent without clear usage criteria.

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