get_single_acc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description mentions '정밀 분석' (precise analysis), which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what the output format looks like. For a tool that appears to process financial data with 4 parameters, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 clearly states the tool's core function. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates, though it could benefit from additional context. There's no wasted language or redundancy, making it structurally sound despite its brevity.

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 complexity of financial data analysis with 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It explains what the tool does at a high level but provides no information about parameters, behavioral characteristics, output format, or how it differs from related tools. For a tool that appears to be part of a financial reporting system, this leaves too many gaps for effective 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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 4 parameters (corp_code, bsns_year, reprt_code, fs_div) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description doesn't mention any parameters at all, providing no semantic information about what these parameters mean, their expected formats, or how they affect the analysis. This leaves all parameters completely undocumented.

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: '단일 기업의 전체 XBRL 재무제표 데이터를 기반으로 세부 계정까지 정밀 분석' (Precise analysis down to detailed accounts based on a single company's entire XBRL financial statement data). It specifies the verb ('정밀 분석' - precise analysis), resource ('XBRL 재무제표 데이터' - XBRL financial statement data), and scope ('단일 기업' - single company, '세부 계정까지' - down to detailed accounts). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_single_acnt' or 'get_multi_acnt', which appear to be related tools for financial data analysis.

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 prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for usage. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'get_single_acnt', 'get_multi_acnt', 'get_single_index'), there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it should be preferred over others for financial analysis tasks.

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