get_paid_free_capital_increase

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. However, it fails to describe what the tool does operationally—whether it's a read-only query, a computational analysis, or something else. It doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, output format, or any side effects. The abstract language offers no practical behavioral insights for an AI agent.

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, dense sentence in Korean that packs abstract concepts but lacks structural clarity. While concise in length, it's not front-loaded with actionable information—it leads with analytical jargon rather than a clear tool purpose. The sentence earns its place by attempting to convey scope, but the abstraction reduces practical utility.

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's complexity (implied by the abstract description) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, or any behavioral traits. For a tool with three parameters and no structured output documentation, the description should provide more operational context to compensate, which it fails to do.

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, bgn_de, end_de) with examples. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without param details in the description, which applies here.

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 '유무상증자 병행 결정을 통한 복합 자본 전략 및 지배구조 재편 가능성 분석' (Analysis of complex capital strategy and governance restructuring possibilities through concurrent paid/free capital increase decisions) is vague and abstract rather than stating a clear action. It describes an analytical purpose but doesn't specify what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieves data, generates reports, or performs calculations). The name 'get_paid_free_capital_increase' suggests data retrieval, but the description doesn't confirm this with a specific verb+resource 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any sibling tools (like 'get_free_capital_increase' or 'get_paid_in_capital_increase') that might handle similar data, nor does it specify prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusion criteria. Users must infer usage from the abstract description alone.

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