get_division_report

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 '분석' (analysis), which suggests a read-only operation, it doesn't explicitly state whether this is a query or computation, what permissions might be required, whether it performs complex calculations, or what format the analysis results take. For a tool with 'report' in its name and no annotations, this is a significant gap in behavioral 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 directly states the tool's function. There's no unnecessary verbiage or repetition. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning it's a report or analysis tool upfront.

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 name suggests a 'report' and the description mentions '분석' (analysis), this appears to be a potentially complex analytical tool. With no annotations, no output schema, and the description providing only basic purpose information, there are significant gaps. Users won't know what the analysis output looks like, what methodology is used, or what specific risks are evaluated.

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 (corp_code, bgn_de, end_de) clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without parameter details 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: analyzing risks to newly established corporations and potential shareholder value impairment through company division conditions. It uses specific terms like '리스크 및 주주가치 훼손 가능성 분석' (risk and shareholder value impairment possibility analysis), which goes beyond a simple tautology. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_division' or 'get_division_merger' that might handle related corporate division data.

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 related to corporate events (e.g., get_division, get_merger_report, get_business_acquisition), there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be preferred. The description focuses solely on what the tool does, not when to use it.

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