get_bankruptcy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions analysis but doesn't clarify whether this is a calculation, retrieval of pre-computed data, or generation of new insights. No information about data sources, update frequency, computational requirements, or output format is provided. The description is too high-level to guide the agent on what to expect behaviorally.

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 states the core function. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be more front-loaded with the primary action verb to immediately clarify what the tool does.

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?

For a tool with 3 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what kind of analysis is performed, what format the results take, or how bankruptcy data is sourced and processed. The high-level statement leaves too many operational questions unanswered for effective agent 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%, providing good documentation for all three parameters (corp_code, bgn_de, end_de). The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information 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 states the tool analyzes corporate liquidity crisis and structural weakness risks based on bankruptcy occurrence, which provides a general purpose. However, it doesn't specify the exact action (retrieve? calculate? generate?) or clearly distinguish from sibling tools like get_debt or get_rehabilitation that might cover related financial distress topics. The purpose is somewhat vague rather than specific.

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 covering financial and corporate events (get_debt, get_rehabilitation, get_dissolution, etc.), there's no indication of when bankruptcy risk analysis is appropriate versus other financial distress indicators. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context are mentioned.

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