get_foreign_delisting_decision

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 '분석' (analysis), suggesting it performs some processing or evaluation, but it doesn't disclose key behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only query, what format the output takes, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it 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, dense sentence in Korean that packs multiple concepts (delisting decision, global withdrawal strategy, governance risk analysis). While concise, it may be overly compact, potentially obscuring clarity. It's front-loaded with the main purpose but could benefit from more structured breakdown for better readability.

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 complexity implied by '분석' (analysis), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a risk score, report, or raw data), how the analysis is performed, or any limitations. For a tool with three required parameters and no structured output information, more context is needed to understand its full functionality.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for 'corp_code', 'bgn_de', and 'end_de' in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain how these parameters relate to the analysis or any constraints). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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 '글로벌 시장 철수 전략 및 지배구조 변동 리스크' (global market withdrawal strategy and governance change risk) through '해외증권시장 상장폐지 결정' (foreign securities market delisting decision). This indicates it analyzes risks related to delisting decisions, but it's somewhat vague about the specific action (e.g., whether it retrieves, analyzes, or generates reports). It doesn't clearly distinguish from siblings like 'get_foreign_delisting' or 'get_foreign_listing_decision'.

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 risk analysis related to delisting decisions, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, contexts where it's appropriate, or when other tools (e.g., 'get_foreign_delisting' for raw data) might be better. Usage is implied through the analysis focus, but no clear guidelines are given.

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