find_actor_overlap

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

With no annotations, the description transparently explains that the tool collects both CB/BW/EB and paid-in capital increase disclosures, integrates acquirers, and tags common actors with source (CB/paid-in). It also mentions API constraints. However, it does not disclose whether the tool has any side effects or state changes.

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 well-structured with a header, constraints, data source explanation, and parameter definition. It is concise but could be slightly more compact by integrating the constraints into the purpose statement.

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 complexity of cross-company analysis and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the purpose, data sources, constraints, and parameter usage. It lacks an example of the output or a note about performance, but the output schema likely fills that gap.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description adds value by explaining that company_names is a list of company names or stock codes (2-5 required) and provides an example. However, it lacks format details (e.g., exact naming conventions) and does not specify validation rules.

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 compares multiple companies' CB/BW/EB and paid-in capital increase acquirers to detect common actors. It specifies the domain (Korean DART filings) and constraints (2-5 companies, direct search only, no reverse lookup), making it distinct from sibling tools that analyze risk, timelines, or other financial aspects.

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 usage context, noting DART API restrictions and that reverse search is unavailable. It implies when to use this tool (to find common actors across companies) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like search_market_disclosures or get_shareholder_info.

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