get_single_acnt

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. While it mentions '분석' (analysis) which suggests a read-only operation, it doesn't explicitly state whether this is a query or computation, what permissions might be required, whether there are rate limits, what format the analysis results take, or any other behavioral characteristics. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient disclosure.

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. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates, though it could potentially be more informative. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what kind of analysis is performed, what metrics or ratios are calculated, what format the results take, or how to interpret the output. Given the complexity implied by '수익성과 재무건전성 분석' (profitability and financial health analysis) and the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more context about what users can expect from this tool.

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?

With 75% schema description coverage (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions in the schema), the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. It doesn't explain the relationships between parameters, provide examples of valid inputs, or clarify the optional fs_div parameter's purpose. The description mentions '핵심 재무계정' (core financial accounts) but doesn't connect this to any specific parameters.

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 profitability and financial health based on core financial accounts of a single company. It specifies the verb ('분석' - analyze) and resource ('단일 기업의 핵심 재무계정' - single company's core financial accounts). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_single_acc or get_multi_acnt, which appear to be related financial analysis tools.

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 available (including get_single_acc, get_multi_acnt, get_multi_index, and get_single_index), there's no indication of what distinguishes this tool from those other financial analysis tools. The description only states what the tool does, not when it's appropriate to use it.

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