get_private_capital_usage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions analysis but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, what format the analysis takes, whether it requires special permissions, or what happens if data is unavailable. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 communicates the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for what it covers, though it could be more front-loaded with clearer action verbs.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the analysis output looks like, what metrics are calculated, or how results should be interpreted. Given the complexity implied by 'plan implementation rate and liquidity-dedicated risk analysis', more context about the return format and analytical methodology would be needed.

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 thoroughly with descriptions and examples. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 'plan implementation rate and liquidity-dedicated risk through private capital usage details', which provides a general purpose. However, it's somewhat vague about the specific verb (analyzes what exactly?) and doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_public_capital_usage' that likely serve related but different functions.

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 is provided. The description doesn't mention when this analysis is appropriate, what prerequisites might exist, or how it differs from similar tools like 'get_public_capital_usage' in the sibling list.

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