get_depository_receipt

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 '분석' (analysis) which suggests a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly state whether this is a query or calculation tool. It doesn't disclose behavioral aspects like whether it returns raw data or processed analysis, what format the output takes, or any limitations (e.g., date range constraints beyond the parameters). For a financial analysis tool with no annotation coverage, 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 Korean phrase that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for what it does convey, though it could be more informative. There's no structural issue with front-loading since it's just one clause.

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 financial analysis tool with 3 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what kind of analysis is performed, what the output contains, or how the parameters interact (e.g., whether the date range applies to issuance date or analysis period). The agent would need to guess about the tool's behavior and output format.

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 all three parameters clearly documented in the schema itself (corp_code, bgn_de, end_de). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 states the tool's purpose as '예탁증권 발행을 통한 해외자금조달 및 외화 리스크 분석' (Depositary receipt issuance for overseas financing and foreign exchange risk analysis), which is specific about the financial domain and activity. However, it doesn't clearly distinguish this tool from its many siblings (e.g., get_foreign_listing, get_bond_with_warrant) that also relate to international financing instruments. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 80+ sibling tools covering various financial disclosures and corporate actions, there's no indication of whether this tool is for historical analysis, current status, or specific types of depositary receipts. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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