ownership_ratio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the computation model (path-product summation, circular investment handled at every stage) plus the legal basis (상증법 시행령 제34조의3②). It does not describe limits, validation of inputs, or failure behavior, but for a pure calculation tool this is substantial disclosure.

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 입력/결과/언제 labels make it well-structured and front-loaded, but the final sentence nearly restates the opening clause ('보유자→법인 직접·간접 보유비율을 계산한다'), duplicating content instead of adding information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully enumerates what is returned (직접비율, 경로별 비율, 합계, 순환출자 여부, 근거 법조). With all three parameters required and covered, the definition is close to self-sufficient, though it omits any note on input validation or edge cases.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-tool semantics by stating stakes='[[보유자, 법인, 지분율(0~1)]]' is identical to related_judge's input and by mapping natural-language names to holder/target. That cross-reference value goes beyond the schema's own example.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('보유자→법인 직접·간접 보유비율을 계산한다') and adds the algorithmic qualifier that indirect holdings are the product of per-stage ratios summed across paths with circular investment reflected. It references related_judge but only to align input format, not to disambiguate scope, so it stops short of a full sibling distinction.

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 explicit '언제' clause names the concrete decision contexts (일감몰아주기, 지배주주 판정) where this tool is used to compute indirect ownership. It gives clear context but does not state when NOT to use it or point to alternative tools such as dominant_shareholder or related_judge.

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