get_corporation_code_by_name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool is for retrieval and is a first step, but lacks details on behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if the corporation name isn't found. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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 that front-loads the core purpose and includes usage context. There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from guidelines) for optimal clarity.

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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the purpose and basic usage, but lacks details on output format or error cases, which could help an agent handle responses better. It's complete enough for a simple lookup tool but not robust.

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, with 'corp_name' clearly documented as '기업명 (예: 삼성전자, 현대자동차)' (corporation name, e.g., Samsung Electronics, Hyundai Motor). The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond this, 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '기업명을 이용하여 기업 고유번호 조회' (retrieve corporation code using corporation name). It specifies the verb (retrieve) and resource (corporation code), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_corporation_code' (which might work differently), so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 implied usage guidance by stating '공시조회를 위해 가장 먼저 실행하여 고유번호를 얻어야 함' (must be executed first to obtain the code for disclosure inquiry), suggesting this is a prerequisite step. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, so it's not fully explicit.

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