get_public_capital_usage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It hints at analytical output but fails to specify whether this is a read-only query, what data format or granularity is returned, any rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with three required parameters and no output schema, this lack of operational detail is a significant gap.

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 and could benefit from breaking down the tool's function more clearly.

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 (three required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how the analysis is presented, or any limitations. For a data retrieval tool in a financial context, this leaves too many unknowns for effective agent 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 each parameter (corp_code, bsns_year, reprt_code) with examples and enum values. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 '공모자금 사용 계획과 집행 내역을 통한 자금 운용 투명성과 전용 리스크 분석' (translated: 'Analysis of fund operation transparency and diversion risk through public fund usage plans and execution details') 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., retrieve, calculate, or report data). This is closer to a tautology of the tool name 'get_public_capital_usage' 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 the many sibling tools (e.g., get_private_capital_usage, get_corporation_info, get_disclosure_document). It doesn't mention prerequisites, alternatives, or specific contexts for application, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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