get_asset_transfer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. The description fails to disclose any behavioral traits - it doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only query, what format the results might be in, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or any other operational characteristics. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence that's relatively concise, but it's front-loaded with complex terminology without establishing the basic purpose first. While not verbose, it could be more effectively structured to communicate the core function before diving into analysis details.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It describes the subject matter but doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are formatted, or any operational constraints. For a tool with 3 required parameters and no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context about what users can expect.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (corp_code, bgn_de, end_de) with their descriptions and formats. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 '자산양수도 및 풋백옵션 계약을 통한 경영전략 변화 및 추가 부채 리스크 분석' which translates to 'Analysis of management strategy changes and additional debt risks through asset transfer and putback option contracts.' This is vague about what the tool actually does - it describes the subject matter but doesn't specify the action (retrieve? analyze? calculate?). It doesn't clearly distinguish from siblings like get_business_transfer or get_tangible_asset_transfer.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to corporate actions and disclosures, there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be selected over similar tools like get_business_transfer or get_tangible_asset_transfer.

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