get_multi_index

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose behavioral traits. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only query, what data format it returns, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. The description is purely conceptual without operational details.

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 sentence that's reasonably concise, but it's not front-loaded with operational clarity. While brief, it prioritizes conceptual framing over actionable information that would help an agent invoke the tool.

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 4 required parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, no output schema, and complex financial analysis purpose, the description is completely inadequate. It provides conceptual context but no operational information needed to select or invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so all 4 parameters (corp_code, bsns_year, reprt_code, idx_cl_code) are undocumented in the schema. The description provides no information about what these parameters mean, their expected formats, or how they affect the analysis. It completely fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 '그룹 단위의 주요 재무지표 분석을 통한 계열사 리스크 및 성장성 평가' (Group-level key financial indicator analysis for affiliate risk and growth evaluation) states a general purpose but lacks a specific verb and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get_single_index'. It's vague about what the tool actually does operationally.

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 like 'get_single_index' or other financial data tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context.

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