get_non_audit_service_contract

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions '리스크 분석' (risk analysis), implying some processing or interpretation, but does not clarify if this is a read-only operation, what data format is returned, or any limitations (e.g., data availability, processing time). The description is insufficient for understanding the tool's behavior beyond its analytical purpose.

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 directly states the tool's analytical purpose. It is front-loaded with no unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient. However, it could be more structured by separating the action from the outcome for clarity.

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 '리스크 분석' (risk analysis), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., risk scores, detailed reports, or raw data), how the analysis is performed, or any prerequisites. For a tool that likely involves data processing, this lack of detail hinders effective use.

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 and formats. The description adds no additional parameter information, so it relies entirely on the schema. This meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately covers parameter semantics without need for compensation.

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 '비감사용역 계약 내역을 통한 감사인의 독립성 훼손 및 이해상충 리스크 분석' (Analysis of risks to auditor independence and conflicts of interest through non-audit service contract details) states the tool's purpose but does so vaguely. It describes an analytical outcome rather than the specific action performed (e.g., retrieving, listing, or analyzing data). The tool name 'get_non_audit_service_contract' suggests a retrieval function, but the description focuses on risk analysis without clarifying the exact operation.

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. It does not mention sibling tools like 'get_audit_service_contract' or specify contexts where this tool is appropriate. Without explicit or implied usage instructions, the agent lacks direction on application scenarios.

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