get_foreign_listing_decision

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description fails to indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what data format it returns, if there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or potential side effects. It only states an analytical purpose without describing the tool's behavior or output.

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 sentence that is concise but under-specified. While it's not verbose, it fails to convey essential tool functionality, making it inefficient in terms of information density. Every sentence should earn its place, and this one provides minimal actionable information.

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 the tool name (retrieving foreign listing decisions), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, or any behavioral aspects. For a tool with three required parameters and no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context about the operation and results.

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 input schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without param 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 '해외상장 결정을 통해 자금조달 전략 및 글로벌 리스크 요인 분석' (Analysis of funding strategies and global risk factors through foreign listing decisions) describes an outcome or purpose rather than what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify the action (e.g., 'retrieve', 'fetch', 'get') or the resource (e.g., 'foreign listing decisions', 'documents'). The tool name 'get_foreign_listing_decision' suggests it retrieves data, but the description is vague about the operation.

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 prerequisites, context for usage, or differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_foreign_listing' or 'get_foreign_delisting_decision'. Without such guidance, an agent cannot make informed decisions about tool selection.

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