get_merger

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 but fails completely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read operation, what data format it returns, whether it has side effects, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description is purely about the analysis topic rather than the tool's operational 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 Korean phrase that's technically concise but fails to communicate essential information. While it's not verbose, this conciseness comes at the cost of clarity - the description is too brief to be helpful. It doesn't follow the principle of front-loading critical information about the tool's function.

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 completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, error conditions, or operational constraints. The description focuses on the analysis topic rather than providing the contextual information needed to use 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters clearly documented in the input schema (corp_code, bgn_de, end_de). The 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.

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 '합병 결정을 통한 지배구조 재편 및 소액주주 보호 리스크 분석' (Analysis of governance restructuring and minority shareholder protection risks through merger decisions) describes the analysis domain but doesn't specify what the tool actually does. It's vague about whether this retrieves data, performs calculations, or generates reports. The description focuses on the subject matter rather than the tool's function, making it difficult to distinguish from sibling tools like get_merger_report.

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 absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparison with similar tools like get_merger_report or get_division_merger. The agent receives no usage instructions beyond what can be inferred from the tool name and parameters.

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