get_corporation_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions what information is analyzed, it doesn't describe the tool's behavior: whether it's a read-only operation, what format the analysis is returned in, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The description is purely functional without behavioral context.

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 communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter and clear purpose, though it could potentially be more front-loaded with key distinguishing information given the many sibling tools.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what format the 'analysis' returns, what specific governance and disclosure information is included, or how comprehensive the analysis is. Given the complexity implied by 'governance and disclosure schedule analysis' and the lack of structured output documentation, more descriptive context is needed.

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 the single parameter 'corp_code' clearly documented as an 8-digit unique identifier for disclosure target companies. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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: analyzing corporate governance and disclosure schedules based on basic company information like representative, settlement month, and listing status. It specifies the verb 'analyze' and the resource 'basic company information', making it clear what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools 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. With many sibling tools that retrieve various types of corporate information (like get_corporation_code, get_executive_info, get_dividend_info, etc.), there's no indication of when this specific governance and disclosure analysis tool is appropriate versus other information retrieval tools.

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