shareholder_meeting_notice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that include_coverage can slow things down, that it automatically selects the latest corrected filing, and that providing rcept_no skips searches. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, authentication needs, or rate limits. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 structured with clearly labeled sections (desc, when, rule, parameter details, ref). It front-loads the purpose. While somewhat verbose, it efficiently conveys necessary information for a tool with many parameters.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers purpose, usage context, key parameter behaviors, and relationships with sibling tools. Missing parameter explanations for 6 out of 10 parameters is a gap, but the explained ones are thorough.

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% per context, but the description explains semantics for meeting_type, scope, include_coverage, and rcept_no, adding value beyond the schema. However, it misses explanations for year, format, end_date, start_date, lookback_months, and company, which are important for date ranges and input validation.

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 retrieves shareholder meeting notices (소집공고) including agenda, director candidates, compensation limits, and articles changes. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning that results feed into shareholder_meeting_results and proxy_advise_before_meeting, but does not explicitly contrast with all siblings.

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 description includes a 'when' section indicating when to use ('주총 일정·안건·후보·보수·정관 확인') and directs to sibling tools for results and comprehensive analysis. It also provides rules (exact company identification, automatic latest corrected filing selection). This gives clear context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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