get_foreign_delisting

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions 'analysis' which suggests some processing, it doesn't clarify whether this is a read-only query, a computational analysis, or something else. It provides no information about permissions needed, rate limits, response format, or potential side effects. The description is too vague to adequately inform the agent about 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, moderately long sentence in Korean. While not excessively verbose, it's not particularly well-structured or front-loaded with the most critical information. The description could be more efficiently organized to first state the tool's function before elaborating on the analysis context.

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 this is a 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what format the analysis takes, or provide sufficient behavioral context. For a tool that appears to perform some kind of analysis (implied by the description), more information about the output and processing behavior would be expected.

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 adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter information 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 is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_foreign_delisting' in Korean as '해외증권시장 상장폐지를 통한 해외사업 축소 및 자본구조 변동성 리스크 분석' (analysis of overseas business reduction and capital structure volatility risk through foreign securities market delisting). It doesn't specify what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieve data, generate reports, or perform analysis). The description focuses on the subject matter rather than the tool's 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any sibling tools (like 'get_foreign_delisting_decision' or 'get_foreign_listing') that might be related, nor does it specify prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or limitations for using this tool.

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