get_corporate_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the two modes but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor does it mention any side effects, rate limits, or auth requirements. The Korean word '조회' implies inquiry, but it is not explicit for non-Korean readers.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. It is concise but could be better structured (e.g., bullet points). Every sentence contributes meaning.

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 6 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the two modes well but lacks details on return format, pagination, or any constraints. It is moderately complete.

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 100%, but the description adds value by explaining mode semantics (e.g., timeline auto-selects capital events if event_types not specified) and the corporate parameter. It goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 corporate events from a specific report (DS005) with two modes. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which query events.

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 explains when to use each mode: single for one event type, timeline for capital-related events over a period, calling it a 'killer mode' for extracting capital stress narratives. It does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the guidance is clear.

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