get_tangible_asset_acquisition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'analysis' which suggests a read operation, but doesn't clarify if this is a query, report generation, or data retrieval. It fails to disclose critical behavioral aspects like whether it's a safe read operation, what format the output takes, if there are rate limits, or if special permissions are required for the analysis.

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 sentence that's reasonably concise, but it's front-loaded with abstract concepts rather than concrete functionality. While not verbose, it could be more structured to first state what the tool returns before describing its analytical purpose.

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 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool actually returns (data, report, analysis results), the format of output, or how the 'analysis' is performed. Users cannot understand what to expect from invoking this tool beyond the abstract purpose statement.

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. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation through the schema alone.

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 states the tool analyzes 'asset structure changes and related-party transaction risks through tangible asset acquisition decisions', which provides some purpose but is vague and abstract. It doesn't specify what the tool actually returns (e.g., a report, data points, analysis results) or what 'analysis' entails. Compared to sibling tools like 'get_tangible_asset_transfer' which clearly retrieves specific data, this description lacks concrete action verbs and resource specification.

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, timing considerations, or how it differs from related tools like 'get_tangible_asset_transfer' or 'get_business_acquisition'. Users must infer usage from the abstract description alone.

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