get_equity

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 analysis but doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only query, a computational process, or if it has side effects like data modification. There's no information on permissions, rate limits, or output format, which is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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's appropriately sized for a tool with three parameters, though it could be more front-loaded with the verb action for clarity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a description that lacks behavioral details, this is incomplete. The tool has three required parameters and performs analysis, but the description doesn't explain what the analysis returns, how it's computed, or any constraints, making it inadequate for informed 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for corp_code, bgn_de, and end_de parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as how these dates relate to the analysis or format constraints. 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 governance structure changes and fund operation risks through new share issuance and equity securities sales history, which provides a general purpose. However, it's somewhat vague about the specific action (e.g., retrieve, generate, calculate) and doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling tools like get_stock_total or get_major_shareholder_changes that might cover related equity 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies it's for analyzing governance and risk, but doesn't specify prerequisites, timing, or how it differs from other equity-related tools in the sibling list, leaving usage context unclear.

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