get_business_transfer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions '리스크 분석' (risk analysis), which implies analytical processing, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's a read-only query, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or involves computation. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.

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. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though the purpose itself is abstract. There's no wasted text, but it could be more specific.

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, no output schema, and a vague description, the tool's functionality is unclear. The description doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., data, analysis report) or how it behaves, making it incomplete for a tool with parameters and siblings.

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 'corp_code', 'bgn_de', and 'end_de'. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 '영업양도 결정을 통한 사업 철수 전략 및 자산이전 리스크 분석' (Business withdrawal strategy through business transfer decisions and asset transfer risk analysis) is vague and abstract. It describes a high-level analytical purpose rather than specifying what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieve business transfer data). It doesn't clearly state the verb (get/retrieve/fetch) or resource (business transfer records/data), making it hard to distinguish from siblings like 'get_asset_transfer' or 'get_business_acquisition'.

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, context, or differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., 'get_asset_transfer' or 'get_business_acquisition'), leaving the agent with no usage instructions.

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