get_other_corp_stock_acquisition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions analysis but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only query, what data sources are used, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or the format of results. For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, this leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though it could be more front-loaded with key details. No wasted text, but could benefit from slight expansion 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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and involves analysis (implying some complexity), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the analysis entails, what output to expect, or any behavioral context. For a tool with three required parameters and no structured output, 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (corp_code, bgn_de, end_de) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as how they relate to the analysis or any constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 '타법인 주식 양수를 통한 지배구조 강화 및 우회상장 가능성' (strengthening governance structure and backdoor listing possibility through acquisition of other corporations' stocks), which provides a general purpose but lacks a specific verb and doesn't distinguish from similar tools like 'get_other_corp_stock_transfer' or 'get_investment_in_other_corp'. It's vague about what exactly is returned (e.g., analysis results, data points, or reports).

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. The description implies it's for analyzing acquisitions for governance and listing purposes, but doesn't specify prerequisites, context, or compare it to sibling tools like 'get_business_acquisition' or 'get_other_corp_stock_transfer'. Usage is implied rather than clearly defined.

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