get_executive_info

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 of executive status, composition, career suitability, and governance risk, which suggests a read-only, analytical function. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits such as data source, update frequency, rate limits, or output format, leaving gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 front-loaded with key terms like '임원 현황' (executive status) and '지배구조 리스크 분석' (governance risk analysis), making it easy to scan. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating distinct aspects of the analysis.

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 (analysis of executive and governance data), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It outlines what the tool does but misses details on behavioral aspects and output. For a tool with no structured support, it should provide more context to be fully 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, clearly documenting the three required parameters (corp_code, bsns_year, reprt_code). The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how these parameters affect the analysis. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 executive status, composition, career suitability, and governance risk, which provides a general purpose. However, it's somewhat vague about the specific action (e.g., retrieving vs. analyzing data) and doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_executive_compensation_approved' or 'get_executive_trading', which also involve executive information.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for analyzing executive status and governance, but it doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over other executive-related tools in the sibling list.

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