corporate_restructuring

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

No annotations provided. The description mentions it uses 4 APIs in parallel and default 24-month lookback, which gives some insight. However, it does not explicitly state if the tool is read-only, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The term '결정 통합' implies data gathering, but behavioral constraints are not fully disclosed.

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 with sections (desc, when, rule, ref). It mixes Korean and English, which may reduce clarity. It is relatively efficient but could be more readable with better structure and separation of concerns.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, and API references. However, it does not describe the output schema (which exists) or parameter details. Given the tool has 4 parameters and references multiple APIs, more detail on inputs and outputs would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not explain each parameter individually. 'company' is implied, 'start_date' and 'end_date' are likely date range but not explained, 'format' defaults to 'md' but its meaning is unclear. The description adds minimal value beyond the parameter names.

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 it integrates 4 types of governance restructuring decisions (merger/division/divisional merger/stock exchange). It lists specific outputs like merger ratio, counterparty financials, etc. It distinguishes from sibling tool corporate_deals for simple equity transactions.

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 explicitly describes when to use (M&A restructuring, holding company conversion) and when not to (simple equity acquisition/sale, which should use corporate_deals). It provides clear context and alternative.

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