search_json_financial_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the data source (JSON API), its role as a fallback tool, and a key behavioral limit: '당기 데이터만 표시' (only current-period data is shown). It lacks details on failure modes or error behavior but is adequate for a read-only retrieval tool.

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 a brief usage note, a labeled Args section, and a Returns section. The opening sentence is grammatically awkward ('제공하는 실패시 보완하는'), but overall it is efficiently organized and not overly verbose for a 5-parameter tool.

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 lack of annotations and barren schema, the description covers parameter semantics, use-case context, and return type. It explains most of what an agent needs, though it could mention how to handle failures or the exact structure of the returned text. It is largely complete for a fallback financial-data retrieval tool.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, yet the description explains all 5 parameters with examples, valid values, and defaults. It adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema fields, including corporate name examples, report codes, and statement type enum values.

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 it provides company financial information via JSON API and explicitly names it as a fallback when sibling tools fail for pre-September 2023 data. This distinguishes it from search_disclosure and search_detailed_financial_data, though the phrasing is slightly awkward and lacks a crisp verb like 'retrieve'.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: when search_disclosure and search_detailed_financial_data fail to analyze data before September 2023. It clearly names the alternative tools, giving strong usage guidance.

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