get_audit_service_contract

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions analysis but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only query, a computational analysis, or if it has side effects like data modification. No information on permissions, rate limits, or output format is included.

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, efficient sentence in Korean that directly states the tool's purpose. It's appropriately concise without unnecessary words, though it could be more structured for clarity in English contexts.

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 complexity of risk analysis, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the analysis entails, how results are returned, and behavioral aspects, making it insufficient for effective tool 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%, so the input schema already documents all parameters (corp_code, bsns_year, reprt_code) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter details beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 the tool analyzes audit quality and independence risks through audit service contract history, which provides a general purpose. However, it's somewhat vague about the specific action (e.g., retrieve, analyze, or generate report) and doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_non_audit_service_contract' beyond the contract type.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage for risk analysis related to audit contracts, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare with similar tools in the sibling list.

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