get_division

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 analytical outcome without stating what the tool does operationally (e.g., fetches data, generates reports). It lacks information on permissions, rate limits, data sources, or response format, leaving the agent with no understanding of how the tool behaves or its safety profile.

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 phrase that is overly broad and lacks structure. It fails to front-load key information about the tool's action, instead focusing on abstract outcomes. While concise, it under-specifies the tool's purpose, making it inefficient for quick understanding by an agent.

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 business restructuring and risk analysis), no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete behavioral disclosure, the description is highly inadequate. It does not provide enough context for an agent to understand what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or its operational constraints, failing to meet minimal completeness standards.

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 clear descriptions for 'corp_code', 'bgn_de', and 'end_de'. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter relationships or usage context. Since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description neither compensates nor detracts from parameter understanding.

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 '회사분할 결정을 통한 사업 구조 재편 및 상장 우회 리스크 분석' (Business restructuring through corporate division decisions and analysis of listing bypass risks) states a high-level outcome but lacks a specific verb indicating what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieve, list, analyze). It does not clearly distinguish from siblings like 'get_division_merger' or 'get_division_report', making it vague about the tool's function beyond the topic of corporate divisions.

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 does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and with many sibling tools related to corporate events (e.g., 'get_merger', 'get_business_transfer'), there is no indication of how this tool differs or when it is appropriate, leading to potential misuse.

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