proxy_advise_before_meeting

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: integrates multiple sources, warns about not altering decisions, explains hard-fail/soft-fail distinction, and notes the time impact of check_audit_history. No contradictions.

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?

Relatively long but well-organized with labeled sections (desc, when, rule, etc.). Every sentence adds value; could be slightly more concise but appropriate for complexity.

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, behavioral details, parameter explanations, and references related tools. Output schema exists, so return values are not needed. Complete for a complex tool.

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 description must compensate. It explains vote_style (default open_proxy), check_audit_history (timing), and meeting_type (options). However, year (default 0 meaning unclear) and format (md not explained) are insufficiently described.

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?

Clearly states the tool provides pre-meeting voting recommendations per agenda item. Differentiates from post-meeting tool and siblings by specifying the timing ('소집 전').

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 when to use: after notice but before the meeting, for voting decisions and internal reporting. Provides alternative 'shareholder_meeting_results' for post-meeting results and includes rules about hard-fail vs soft-fail items.

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