get_major_shareholder_changes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'risk analysis', suggesting some processing or interpretation beyond raw data retrieval, but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output entails (e.g., structured report vs. raw changes). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('major shareholder changes') and intended use ('risk analysis'). It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity in English contexts.

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', no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a processed risk score, raw data with analysis, or a narrative report), leaving the agent uncertain about the output format and behavioral expectations.

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, clearly documenting all three required parameters (corp_code, bsns_year, reprt_code) with examples. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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 states the tool analyzes 'major shareholder changes' for 'management control and succession flow risk analysis', which clarifies the purpose beyond just retrieving data. However, it's somewhat vague about the exact output format and doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_major_holder_changes' or 'get_major_shareholder', leaving room for ambiguity.

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, such as 'get_major_holder_changes' or 'get_major_shareholder', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It implies usage for risk analysis but lacks explicit context for tool selection.

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