get_outside_director_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description mentions 'risk analysis' which suggests some processing or interpretation, but doesn't clarify whether this is a read-only data retrieval or an analytical computation. It provides no information about permissions needed, rate limits, response format, or any behavioral characteristics.

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 phrase that's relatively concise, but it's not structured or front-loaded with the most critical information. While brief, it fails to efficiently communicate the tool's purpose and instead presents an abstract concept that requires interpretation.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what format the output takes, or how the 'risk analysis' manifests in practice. Given the complexity implied by the description and the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide much more context about the tool's behavior and outputs.

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%, with all three parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 '사외이사 현황을 통한 이사회 독립성과 지배구조 감시 기능 리스크 분석' translates to 'Risk analysis of board independence and governance monitoring function through outside director status.' This is vague and abstract - it doesn't specify what the tool actually does (retrieve data? analyze? generate report?) or what resource it operates on. It restates the tool name concept rather than providing a clear action statement.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus the 70+ sibling tools. There's no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or specific scenarios where this tool is appropriate. Given the extensive sibling tool list covering various corporate governance and financial topics, this lack of differentiation is particularly problematic.

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