get_treasury_stock_trust_termination

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions analysis of policy changes and risks, hinting at read-only data retrieval, but fails to disclose critical details like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or whether it returns historical or real-time data. The description is too abstract to guide safe and effective tool invocation.

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 multiple concepts (termination, policy changes, risk analysis) without front-loading the core function. While not verbose, it lacks structural clarity and could benefit from breaking down the purpose versus the analytical outcome. It's concise but not optimally organized for quick comprehension.

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 omits essential context such as the return format (e.g., report, data points), data recency, error conditions, and how the analysis is presented. Given the complexity implied by 'analysis,' more detail is needed to complement the bare schema and lack of annotations.

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%, clearly documenting all three parameters (corp_code, bgn_de, end_de) with examples and requirements. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as how these dates relate to termination events or data availability. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 'stock price policy changes and governance structure risks through treasury stock trust contract termination,' which provides a general purpose but lacks a clear verb like 'retrieve' or 'fetch.' It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_treasury_stock_trust_contract' by focusing on termination rather than contract details, but the scope remains vague without specifying output format or data type.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies analysis related to termination events, there's no mention of prerequisites, timing, or how it differs from other treasury stock tools (e.g., 'get_treasury_stock_acquisition'). The description assumes context without offering practical usage instructions.

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