get_free_capital_increase

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 'risk analysis' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, what data sources it uses, potential rate limits, or the format of analysis results. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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 '무상증자' (free capital increase) and '리스크 분석' (risk analysis), making it easy to scan, though it could be slightly more structured 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 the complexity implied by 'risk analysis' and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the analysis outputs (e.g., risk scores, reports), how results are formatted, or any limitations. For a tool with no structured behavioral data, this leaves too much ambiguity for effective 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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (corp_code, bgn_de, end_de) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, such as explaining how the date range affects the analysis or providing examples beyond the schema. This meets the baseline score when schema coverage is high.

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 risks related to capital structure adjustment and shareholder equity changes through free capital increases, which provides a general purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what exactly is analyzed (e.g., risk metrics, outputs) and doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_paid_free_capital_increase' or 'get_paid_in_capital_increase' that might handle similar financial events.

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 risk analysis of free capital increases, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or recommend other tools for related tasks like paid capital increases or general financial data retrieval from the sibling list.

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