agm_compensation_xml

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: XML parsing, automatic fallback to agm_parse_fallback for incomplete data, and prerequisite of corp_identifier for uncertain company identification. It does not explicitly state read-only nature but the lack of destructive implications and detailed fallback logic compensates.

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 efficiently structured with labeled sections (desc, when, rule, ref, Args) and each sentence serves a purpose. No redundant or irrelevant information, achieving maximum clarity in minimal 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 moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, usage conditions, fallback behavior, parameter meanings, and references to related tools. It leaves no obvious gaps for a typical use case.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides full semantic details for all three parameters: ticker (stock code or company name with auto-search), rcept_no (priority and direct entry example), and format ('md' or 'json' with default). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema titles.

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 explicitly states '이사/감사 보수한도' and lists the returned fields (당기 한도, 전기 실지급, 이사 수, 소진율), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like agm_agenda_xml or agm_financials_xml which cover other AGM topics.

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 'when' section specifies the exact use case ('보수한도/소진율 상세가 필요할 때') and the 'rule' and 'ref' sections explicitly name alternatives (agm_parse_fallback, corp_identifier) and conditions for fallback, providing clear guidance on when to choose this tool.

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