get_other_corp_stock_transfer

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. However, it only states an analytical purpose without describing the tool's behavior—such as whether it returns data, performs calculations, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what format the output takes. This lack of information makes it inadequate for understanding how the tool operates.

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, which is efficient in length. However, it is not front-loaded with actionable information—it focuses on analysis rather than function, and the structure does not prioritize clarity. While not verbose, it lacks the effective organization needed for quick understanding.

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 the analytical purpose, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how the analysis is performed, or any behavioral context, leaving significant gaps. For a tool with three parameters and no structured output, this description does not provide enough information for 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 the three required parameters (corp_code, bgn_de, end_de) with examples. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, so it neither compensates nor detracts. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the schema handles the parameter semantics adequately.

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 '타법인 주식 양도를 통한 자산 유동화 및 사업 철수 신호 분석' (Analysis of asset liquidity and business withdrawal signals through other corporation stock transfers) states a high-level analytical purpose but lacks a clear action verb and specific resource. It describes what the tool analyzes rather than what it does (e.g., retrieve, list, or fetch data), making it vague compared to sibling tools like 'get_other_corp_stock_acquisition' which imply data retrieval. This is closer to a tautology of the name than a functional description.

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 any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and with many sibling tools (e.g., 'get_other_corp_stock_acquisition', 'get_asset_transfer'), there is no indication of how this tool differs or when it should be selected, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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