get_single_index

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 returns, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or data freshness considerations. For a financial analysis tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 Korean sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for what it does convey, though it could benefit from being more comprehensive given the complexity of financial analysis.

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 financial analysis tool with 4 required parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, no output schema, and complex sibling relationships, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, return format, error conditions, or differentiation from similar tools. The description fails to compensate for the lack of structured documentation.

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 has 0% description coverage for all 4 required parameters (corp_code, bsns_year, reprt_code, idx_cl_code). The description doesn't explain what these parameters mean, what formats they expect, or provide examples. While it mentions the analysis is based on four indicator categories, it doesn't map these to the idx_cl_code parameter or clarify the other parameters' purposes.

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 performs '재무 리스크 분석' (financial risk analysis) based on four specific financial indicator categories (profitability, stability, growth, activity) for a single corporation. It specifies the verb (analyze) and resource (single corporation's financial risk), but doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_multi_index' or 'search_financial_notes' which might handle multiple corporations or different financial data.

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 sibling tools like 'get_multi_index' (for multiple corporations) or 'get_single_acnt' (for single account data), nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts for financial risk analysis versus other financial data tools in the extensive sibling list.

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