get_tangible_asset_transfer

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 vaguely hints at analysis ('리스크 분석' - risk analysis) but doesn't clarify whether this tool performs read-only data retrieval, computational analysis, or something else. It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, output format, or any behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how the tool behaves.

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, dense sentence in Korean that packs abstract concepts but lacks clarity. While concise in length, it's not front-loaded with actionable information and could benefit from restructuring to state the tool's purpose more directly. It's neither overly verbose nor efficiently informative.

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 implied by the description (involving analysis) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, or any behavioral aspects. For a tool with three required parameters and no structured output information, more context is needed to guide 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for each parameter (corp_code, bgn_de, end_de). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 '유형자산 양도 결정을 통한 유동성 확보 및 구조조정 리스크 분석' (Liquidity securing and restructuring risk analysis through tangible asset transfer decisions) is vague and abstract rather than specifying a concrete action. It describes potential outcomes or analyses rather than stating what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieve, list, or analyze specific data). While it mentions 'tangible asset transfer,' it doesn't clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_asset_transfer' or 'get_tangible_asset_acquisition,' leading to ambiguity.

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, context for application, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'get_asset_transfer' or 'get_tangible_asset_acquisition.' Without this, an AI agent cannot determine appropriate usage scenarios.

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