get_merger_report

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 mentions analysis topics but doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be (e.g., structured data vs. narrative). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 lists key analysis areas without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) for clarity. Overall, it's concise with minimal 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 tool's complexity (merger analysis with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how the analysis is presented, or any behavioral traits like error handling. For a tool with no structured output or annotations, more detail is needed to be fully helpful.

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 (corp_code, bgn_de, end_de). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or usage context. With high schema coverage, 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 'merger structure and conditions, management control changes, minority shareholder protection, and merger invalidity risks,' which provides a general purpose but lacks a specific verb and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_merger' or 'get_division_merger.' It's vague about what exactly is returned (e.g., a report, data, or analysis).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_merger' or 'get_division_merger' is provided. The description implies usage for merger analysis but offers no context on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over others.

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