get_xbrl_taxonomy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions analysis and comparison but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential data sources, rate limits, or output format. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this lack of detail is a significant gap.

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 (XBRL, account system, IFRS, comparison, standardization). While concise, it's not front-loaded with clear action and may require parsing, reducing immediate clarity for an AI agent.

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 (4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's output, parameter usage, or behavioral constraints, making it inadequate for effective agent invocation in this context.

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 0%, meaning parameters (sj_div, corp_code, bsns_year, reprt_code) are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about what these parameters mean, their expected values, or how they affect the analysis, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 performs 'analysis through standard account system of XBRL financial statement items for IFRS-based comparison and standardization,' which indicates it analyzes XBRL taxonomies for IFRS comparisons. However, it's vague about the specific action (e.g., retrieving, listing, or analyzing taxonomy data) and doesn't clearly differentiate from siblings like 'search_financial_notes,' which might also involve financial data analysis.

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. The description mentions IFRS-based comparison, but it doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear usage context relative to sibling tools that handle financial data.

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