dominant_shareholder

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the determination rule (Amid: among medium-sized enterprises, the highest direct holder, or for a corporate holder the highest individual by direct+indirect ownership) and the result shape (dominant shareholder name + reasoning), which is substantive behavioral context. It does not state side-effect/reversibility behavior, but this is a computation, not a mutation.

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 언제/입력/결과 labeling is well front-loaded and scannable. However the trailing fragment '수혜법인의 지배주주를 판정한다Amid(...)' reads as corrupted or duplicated text that repeats the purpose and muddles the close, costing clarity.

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?

For a 4-required-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the trigger, every input's mapping, and the return content (name and reasoning), which is enough to invoke it correctly. Minor gaps remain around edge-case behavior but nothing critical is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description builds on it by mapping each argument in '입력' and noting that stakes uses the same format as related_judge — a cross-tool hint the schema does not contain. It adds meaningful orientation rather than restating field types.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (수혜법인의 지배주주 판정) and anchors it with a legal citation (상증법 시행령 제34조의3①). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by pointing to related_judge as the reference for the shared input format, so an agent can place it precisely in the tunneling workflow.

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 '언제' block gives an explicit trigger condition: use when determining the dominant shareholder of the beneficiary corporation inside the 일감몰아주기 deemed-gift computation. That is a clear context, but no when-not guidance or explicit alternative (e.g. when to prefer related_judge or kinship_check instead) is offered.

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