get_treasury_stock_trust_contract

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides minimal information. It mentions 'analysis' which suggests a read operation, but doesn't clarify whether this is a retrieval, calculation, or reporting tool. No information about permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or response format is included. The description is too abstract to guide behavioral expectations.

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 Korean sentence that's reasonably concise, but it's front-loaded with abstract concepts rather than concrete functionality. While not verbose, it fails to efficiently communicate the tool's purpose in actionable terms. The structure could be improved by starting with the verb/action rather than the subject matter 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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how the analysis is performed, or what format results come in. The abstract 'analysis' description leaves too many open questions about the tool's actual behavior and output for effective agent 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 input schema has 100% description coverage with clear parameter documentation (corp_code, bgn_de, end_de), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't explain how these parameters relate to treasury stock trust contract analysis or provide context about their usage.

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 '자기주식 신탁계약 체결을 통한 주가안정화 및 경영권 방어 수단 분석' (Analysis of stock price stabilization and management defense means through treasury stock trust contract conclusion) is vague about what the tool actually does. It describes the subject matter (analysis of treasury stock trust contracts) but doesn't specify the action - whether it retrieves, lists, analyzes, or creates these contracts. The description is more about the topic than the tool's function.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. While there are related tools like 'get_treasury_stock' and 'get_treasury_stock_trust_termination' among the siblings, the description doesn't differentiate this tool from them or explain its specific use case context. Users must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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