proxy_direction

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses parsing Section II-1 via regex, returns '불명' for unclear cases, and automatically finds latest document if rcept_no omitted. Does not mention auth or rate limits, but mutation is unlikely.

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?

Structured with desc, when, rule, ref, and Args sections. Purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy.

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 no annotations and 0% schema coverage, description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and parameters thoroughly. Output schema exists but not detailed here, and error handling is not discussed. Still complete for typical use.

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%, but description fully explains each parameter: ticker with example (stock code or company name), rcept_no (priority over ticker), format (md or json, default md). Priority rule and defaults are 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?

Description clearly states the tool parses voting direction (approve/oppose/abstain) per agenda from proxy documents. It distinguishes from sibling tools by referencing proxy_search, proxy_detail, etc., and specifies automatic search with ticker.

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?

Explicit 'when' clause indicates need for proxy solicitor's stance per agenda. 'rule' describes method and edge cases (regex parsing, uncertain cases). References corp_identifier for identification issues. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but context is clear.

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