get_business_suspension

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 implies this is a read-only tool for risk assessment but doesn't specify whether it queries a database, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. The description focuses on the evaluation purpose rather than the tool's operational behavior.

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, dense sentence in Korean that packs multiple concepts (business unit suspension, profitability deterioration, corporate survival risk, evaluation). While concise, it's not front-loaded with the tool's primary action and could be more structured to separate purpose from context.

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 incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., suspension records, risk scores, or raw data), how results are formatted, or any limitations. The focus on evaluation rather than data retrieval leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's function.

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 parameter descriptions in Korean. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (corp_code, bgn_de, end_de). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description could have explained how these parameters relate to the risk evaluation.

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 '사업부문 단위 영업정지를 통한 수익성 악화 및 기업 존속 리스크 평가' (Evaluation of profitability deterioration and corporate survival risk through business unit suspension) describes the tool's purpose in vague, outcome-oriented terms rather than specifying the action it performs. It doesn't clearly state that this tool retrieves or fetches suspension data, making it difficult to distinguish from siblings that also retrieve corporate information.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or how it differs from other data retrieval tools in the sibling list like get_bankruptcy or get_dissolution, which might relate to corporate risk assessment.

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