get_rehabilitation

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. While 'analysis' suggests a read-only operation, the description doesn't clarify whether this tool performs calculations, returns structured data, has rate limits, requires specific permissions, or what format the analysis takes. For a tool with 3 required parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity, though it could potentially benefit from being broken into multiple sentences for better readability of the dual-purpose analysis (restructuring possibilities AND rehabilitation strategies).

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 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the analysis output looks like, whether it returns structured data or narrative analysis, what time periods are appropriate, or how the rehabilitation procedure initiation applications relate to the parameters. The description leaves too many open questions about tool behavior and results.

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 (corp_code, bgn_de, end_de) with clear descriptions and examples. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how these parameters relate to the rehabilitation analysis or providing additional context about date range usage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: analyzing corporate restructuring possibilities and rehabilitation strategies through rehabilitation procedure initiation applications. It specifies the action ('analysis') and target ('corporate restructuring possibilities and rehabilitation strategies'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_bankruptcy' or 'get_dissolution' which might cover related corporate distress scenarios.

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. With many sibling tools covering corporate events (bankruptcy, dissolution, mergers, etc.), there's no indication of what distinguishes rehabilitation analysis from other corporate distress or restructuring tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison context is provided.

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