get_investment_in_other_corp

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,' which suggests processing or computation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it performs calculations, returns raw data, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. 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, efficient sentence in Korean that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core function, though it could be slightly more specific (e.g., by including a verb). There is no wasted text, making it appropriately concise.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, the tool's context is incomplete. The description hints at analysis but doesn't clarify what the tool actually does (e.g., returns data, performs calculations) or what outputs to expect. For a tool with three parameters and potential complexity in financial analysis, more detail is needed to understand its full scope and usage.

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 parameter details (e.g., corp_code as 8-digit unique number, bsns_year as business year, reprt_code with specific report types). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how these inputs relate to the analysis. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since 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 '타법인 출자 내역을 통한 계열 리스크 및 재무 건전성 분석' translates to 'Analysis of affiliate risk and financial soundness through investment details in other corporations.' This states a purpose (analyzing risk/soundness via investment data) but is vague about the specific action (e.g., retrieving, calculating, or generating a report). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on 'investment in other corporations,' but lacks a clear verb like 'retrieve' or 'analyze.'

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for risk/financial analysis related to investments, but it doesn't specify contexts (e.g., due diligence, monitoring), prerequisites, or comparisons to other tools like 'get_other_corp_stock_acquisition' or 'get_debt.' Usage is left entirely to inference.

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