agm_treasury_share_xml

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses XML parsing behavior, mentions frequent PDF fallback due to agenda title matching limitations, and notes automatic notice search. Could be improved by stating whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, but current info is valuable.

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 compact and front-loaded with purpose in a structured format (desc, when, rule, ref, Args). Every sentence adds value. The mix of Korean and English may be slightly non-standard but is efficient. Could be more concise by removing redundant formatting markers.

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 presence of an output schema, return values are not needed. The description covers purpose, usage, behavioral quirks, and parameter semantics comprehensively. References to fallback tools and judgment criteria provide sufficient context for agent decision-making.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description thoroughly explains all three parameters: ticker (auto-search when empty), rcept_no (override priority over ticker), and format (md/json default). It explains their interaction and defaults, compensating fully for missing schema descriptions.

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 identifies the tool as handling treasury stock (보유/처분/소각) with specifics on quantity, purpose, and method. It distinguishes from siblings like ownership_treasury and agm_parse_fallback by focusing on detailed agenda items and automatic notice search when only ticker is provided.

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 states usage is for tier-5 detail when user requests treasury stock agenda details. Provides clear when-not-to-use guidance via references to agm_parse_fallback and corp_identifier, and advises calling corp_identifier first if company identification is uncertain.

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