get_dissolution

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 'analysis' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only query, what data format it returns, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a tool with 3 required parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 that conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly stating it retrieves data. There is minimal waste, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 complexity (3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the analysis entails, the format of results, or how it differs from similar tools. For a tool that likely returns detailed corporate dissolution data, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how the date range affects the analysis or the source of corp_code. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 states the tool analyzes 'dissolution reason occurrence' and 'liquidation risk' for corporations, which provides a general purpose. However, it lacks a specific verb like 'retrieve' or 'fetch' and doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like get_bankruptcy or get_rehabilitation that might cover related corporate events. The purpose is understandable but vague in execution.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions analyzing dissolution and liquidation risk, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to siblings like get_bankruptcy or get_rehabilitation that might handle similar corporate status changes. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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