proxy_fight

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

No annotations provided, but the description discloses the tool's behavioral flow (detection → classification → comparison) and references other tools. It does not mention side effects or destructive actions, which is acceptable for a read-only orchestration tool. Slight lack of detail on output format.

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?

Description is concise, structured with clear labels ('desc:', 'when:', 'rule:', 'ref:'), and front-loads purpose. Every sentence adds value without 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 the tool's complexity as an orchestrator, the description covers purpose, usage, workflow, and related tools. The presence of an output schema (true) reduces the need to explain return values. It is complete for an agent to use effectively.

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 has 0% description coverage and the description does not explain any parameters (ticker, year, format). The agent must infer meaning from context. For a tool with 3 parameters, this is a significant gap.

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 detects proxy fights and compares company vs shareholder direction. It uses specific verbs ('감지', '비교') and distinguishes from sibling tools like proxy_search and proxy_direction by emphasizing its comparative role.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use context ('tier-4 Orchestrate', specific keywords), a rule outlining the step-by-step pipeline, and an alternative call (ownership_block) for additional information. This helps the agent decide when to invoke this tool versus others.

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