proxy_contest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains that auto-classification is not performed, hints are provided instead, and that vote_math is conservative and not predictive. It also describes the 3-way filer classification and signal logic. This comprehensively covers behavioral traits.

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 labeled sections (desc, when, rule, scope, ref) but is somewhat verbose and includes redundant information (e.g., repeating '위임장' multiple times). It is adequately concise given the complexity, but could be streamlined slightly.

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?

With 7 parameters, no schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete in covering purpose, usage, behavioral rules, and output scopes. However, it does not explain all parameters, and the output schema is present but not referenced. Still, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, and the description does not describe individual parameters such as 'year', 'format', 'end_date', 'start_date', or 'lookback_months'. It mentions scope values in the context of the description, but does not explain the other parameters, leaving the agent to rely on parameter names alone.

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 the tool's purpose: aggregating signals for proxy contests, litigation, and 5% active ownership. It provides a specific verb ('integrate' implied) and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'ownership_structure' and 'proxy_advise_before_meeting' by focusing on contest signals and litigation.

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 lists when to use ('경영권 분쟁, 주주 캠페인, 소송...') and provides a rule ('DART D/B/I만 (KIND false match 위험)') that warns against using with KIND data. Also specifies scope options, giving clear guidance on selecting the appropriate output.

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