get_major_shareholder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the analytical purpose but doesn't reveal key behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only query (likely, but not stated), what data format or granularity is returned, if there are rate limits or authentication requirements, or how it handles errors. 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, concise sentence in Korean that efficiently states the analytical focus. It's front-loaded with the key purpose and avoids unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the action (e.g., 'retrieve and analyze'), but overall, it's well-sized and earns its place without waste.

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 (analysis of governance and risk), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a report, numerical metrics, or raw data), how the analysis is performed, or any limitations. For a tool with no structured behavioral or output information, the description should provide more context to compensate, but it falls short, leaving critical gaps for an agent to use it 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'corp_code' as an 8-digit unique identifier, 'reprt_code' with enum-like examples). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how these inputs affect the analysis. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents the parameters without extra help from 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 states the tool analyzes '지배구조 안정성과 승계 리스크' (governance stability and succession risk) through '최대주주 및 특수관계인의 지분 현황' (major shareholder and related party shareholding status), which gives a general purpose. However, it's somewhat vague about the specific action (e.g., retrieve, calculate, or analyze data) and doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_major_shareholder_changes' or 'get_major_holder_changes', which might provide related but different information.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions analysis of governance stability and succession risk, but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or compare it to other tools in the list (e.g., 'get_major_shareholder_changes' for changes over time). Without such context, an agent might struggle to choose appropriately among similar-sounding tools.

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