agm_retirement_pay_xml

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that the tool parses XML, may fallback to agm_parse_fallback on incomplete data, automatically searches for general meeting notices if only ticker is provided, and returns data in md or json format. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior but implies retrieval. A 4 is appropriate as it is transparent but could add a note about side effects.

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 well-structured with labels (desc, when, rule, ref, Args) and front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value, but it is slightly verbose for a simple tool. It could be trimmed without losing clarity, hence a 4.

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 3 optional parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, parameter details, fallback strategies, and warnings about confusion. It references sibling tools for further info. This is comprehensive for the tool's complexity, so a 5 is justified.

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 provides detailed descriptions in the 'Args' section: ticker (stock code/company name, auto-search if no rcept_no), rcept_no (priority over ticker), format (md/json, default md). This adds significant value beyond the schema, making parameter semantics clear.

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 specifies '임원 퇴직금 규정 개정 (변경전/변경후)' indicating it handles retirement pay regulation amendments. It is clear that it processes XML for this purpose and distinguishes from sibling tools like agm_agenda_xml by focusing on retirement pay. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'parse' in the first sentence, slightly reducing clarity.

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 description explicitly states when to use ('사용자가 퇴직금 규정 상세를 요청했을 때만 사용'), provides fallback instructions (agm_parse_fallback), warns about confusion with financial statement footnotes, and advises calling corp_identifier if identification is uncertain. It also references sibling tools (agm_manual, corp_identifier) for further guidance, offering comprehensive usage context.

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