get_paid_in_capital_increase

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 fails to describe what the tool does operationally—whether it fetches data, performs calculations, returns reports, or has side effects. It doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, data sources, or output format. The description is purely conceptual without practical behavioral details, making it inadequate for agent invocation.

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 phrase in Korean, which is concise but under-specified. It lacks structure—no separation of purpose, usage, or behavior. While brief, it fails to convey essential information efficiently, as every word doesn't earn its place in guiding the agent. It reads more like a topic title than a functional description.

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 apparent complexity (analysis of financial structures), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how the analysis is performed, or any behavioral context. For a tool with three required parameters and no structured output guidance, this description leaves critical gaps for agent understanding and invocation.

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 clear descriptions for 'corp_code', 'bgn_de', and 'end_de'. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, such as how these inputs relate to the analysis or any constraints. Since the schema handles parameter documentation well, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 '유상증자를 통한 자금조달 구조와 지분 희석 및 재무구조 개선 의도 분석' (Analysis of funding structure through paid-in capital increase, share dilution, and financial structure improvement intent) states a general analytical purpose but lacks a specific action verb. It doesn't clearly indicate whether this tool retrieves, calculates, or generates such analysis, making it vague. The tool name 'get_paid_in_capital_increase' suggests retrieval, but the description doesn't confirm this or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_free_capital_increase' or 'get_paid_free_capital_increase'.

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 prerequisites, context for analysis, or differentiate from similar tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'get_free_capital_increase', 'get_paid_free_capital_increase'). There's no indication of when this analysis is appropriate or what scenarios it applies to, leaving usage entirely ambiguous.

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