get_capital_reduction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. However, it only describes an abstract analysis purpose without stating whether this is a read operation, what data it returns, any rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects. For a tool with three required parameters and no output schema, this lack of behavioral information is a significant gap, making it unclear how the tool behaves or what to expect.

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, concise sentence in Korean, which is efficient in length. However, it's front-loaded with abstract terminology rather than clear action, reducing its effectiveness. While not verbose, it lacks structural clarity that would aid understanding, such as separating 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?

Given the complexity implied by the description (involving analysis of capital reduction and risk strategies), three required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is highly incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how the analysis is performed, or any behavioral aspects, leaving critical gaps for the agent to understand and use the tool effectively.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting each parameter (corp_code, bgn_de, end_de) with examples and types. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, such as how they influence the analysis or any constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 '감자 결정을 통한 자본 축소 목적 및 경영 리스크 대응 전략 분석' (Analysis of capital reduction purposes through capital reduction decisions and management risk response strategies) is vague and abstract. It describes a type of analysis rather than specifying what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieve, list, or generate reports). While it mentions 'capital reduction,' it doesn't clearly state the action the tool performs, making it difficult to distinguish from sibling tools like get_dividend_info or get_stock_total that might involve financial data.

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 any prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and with many sibling tools related to corporate financial data (e.g., get_dividend_info, get_equity), there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it's appropriate. This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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