get_division_merger

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. The description fails to indicate whether this is a read-only data retrieval tool, an analytical tool that performs calculations, or something else. It doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, potential side effects, or what kind of output to expect. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this represents a complete failure to disclose behavioral characteristics.

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's appropriately concise, but it's not front-loaded with the most critical information. While it doesn't waste words, it also doesn't efficiently communicate the tool's purpose. The structure could be improved by starting with a clear verb-action statement rather than a conceptual description.

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 that there's no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more complete context about what this tool does and returns. The description is conceptually oriented rather than functional, leaving significant gaps in understanding how to use the tool effectively. For a tool with 3 parameters and no structured output documentation, the description is insufficiently complete.

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 clear documentation for all three required parameters (corp_code, bgn_de, end_de). The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description, which applies here.

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 '분할합병 결정을 통한 사업 재편 및 합병 공정성 리스크 분석' (Business restructuring through division-merger decisions and merger fairness risk analysis) is vague about what the tool actually does. It describes a domain concept rather than specifying a concrete action like 'retrieve division-merger reports' or 'analyze merger fairness risks'. The description doesn't clearly state whether this tool retrieves data, performs analysis, or generates reports, making it difficult for an agent to understand its function.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools related to corporate actions (get_division, get_merger, get_merger_report, get_division_report, get_business_acquisition, etc.), but the description doesn't help differentiate this tool's specific use case from those related tools. An agent would have no basis for choosing this tool over similar alternatives.

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