get_executive_compensation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. While '조회' (inquiry) implies a read-only operation, the description does not explicitly state that the tool does not mutate data or require special authorization. It focuses on data retrieval but lacks explicit safety or permission cues.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the primary purpose and sections, then provide an alternative usage note. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, composite of 6 sections, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and usage context well. It could mention the output format to aid agent understanding, but the schema's section descriptions already handle defaults. Adequate for effective tool selection.

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 50%, and the description adds value by listing and explaining the six section values for the 'sections' parameter. However, it does not elaborate on the 'corp', 'year', or 'report' parameters beyond what the schema minimally provides, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 performs a composite query of six sections of executive compensation, listing each section and distinguishing it from the sibling tool get_periodic_report for single-section queries. The verb '합성 조회' (synthetic query) and resource '임원 보수 6개 섹션' are specific and unambiguous.

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 (for all six sections at once) and when to use an alternative (get_periodic_report for a single section), providing clear guidance on tool selection.

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