check_disclosure_risk

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or limitations. It simply describes the function without adding context beyond that.

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 concise, using a few sentences in Korean and a docstring-like structure. It front-loads the purpose. The format is slightly unnatural due to mixing Korean and Python docstring, but still clear.

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?

The description covers purpose and parameters adequately. However, it does not explain the output or what 'risk' entails, but the presence of an output schema partially compensates. Given the tool's complexity and many siblings, more context would be helpful.

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, but the description adds meaning by specifying the format for rcept_no (14-digit DART number with example) and explaining the use of report_name. It clarifies parameter roles beyond the schema.

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's purpose: 'Analyze the risk of a DART disclosure by its receipt number or disclosure title.' It uses a specific verb ('analyze') and resource ('disclosure risk'), and distinguishes from siblings like check_disclosure_anomaly.

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 provides hints on parameter usage (rcept_no or report_name) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. With over 20 sibling tools, guidance is lacking.

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