get_report_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses token consumption warning, the one-at-a-time constraint, mode behavior differences, the fact that some PDFs are image-based and unreadable, and the failure handling (informing user and providing link). Extremely transparent.

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?

Despite being long, every sentence serves a purpose. The mode table condenses essential info, warnings are clearly flagged, and the structure (purpose, constraints, mode table, rationale, edge case, args) is logical and easy to scan. No wasted words.

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 tool's complexity (three modes, one-at-a-time constraint, token limits, PDF rendering issues) and the absence of annotations, the description covers all necessary context: when, why, how, and what to expect. It even explains the rationale for summary mode based on report structure. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the description fully prepares the agent for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does: the Args section explains each parameter (nid, mode, max_chars) with types, defaults, valid values (including Korean synonyms), and when to use each. Adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states the tool reads one report's PDF content ('증권사 리포트 한 건의 PDF 본문을 읽어옵니다'), and distinguishes itself from sibling get_reports which provides lists and summaries. It also specifies the exact scope (one report at a time) and the use cases.

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?

Explicitly explains when to use this tool vs alternatives: '목록·목표가·짧은 요약은 get_reports로 충분하고, "이 리포트 자세히"...처럼 한 건을 깊게 볼 때만 쓰세요' and provides a table of trigger phrases for each mode. Clearly excludes casual list browsing.

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