get_lawsuit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description fails to mention that this is a read operation (implied by 'get'), what data format it returns, whether it has pagination/limits, or any authentication requirements. For a tool with 3 required parameters and no annotation coverage, this lack of behavioral information is critical.

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 Korean phrase that's appropriately brief. However, it's not front-loaded with functional information - it leads with analytical outcomes rather than the tool's core purpose. While concise, the structure doesn't prioritize what the agent needs most: understanding what the tool actually does.

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?

For a tool with 3 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what kind of lawsuit data is returned, the format, or any limitations. The analytical framing in the description doesn't compensate for missing operational details that an agent needs to invoke the tool effectively.

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 clear parameter descriptions in Korean. The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description. The description doesn't compensate or add context about how these parameters relate to lawsuit retrieval.

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 '소송 제기 사실을 통한 경영권 분쟁 및 재무 리스크 조기 분석' (Early analysis of management disputes and financial risks through lawsuit filing facts) is vague and abstract. It describes an analytical outcome rather than the tool's actual function. The tool name 'get_lawsuit' suggests retrieving lawsuit data, but the description doesn't clearly state this as a data retrieval operation. It's more of a value proposition than a functional description.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., get_bankruptcy, get_merger, get_disclosure_document). It doesn't mention prerequisites, alternative tools for similar data, or specific use cases. The agent would have no basis for choosing this tool over others without trial and error.

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