get_affiliate_investments

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden, and it does meaningful work: it explains that 기초 and 증감 must be read together or a fully-divested case shows only '-', and it describes the return composition and the exclusion of total rows. It does not cover permissions or rate limits, but the interpretative nuance is valuable.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then fields, then use cases, with Args and Returns sections. Efficient and readable, though the field enumeration and interpretation aside make it slightly long for two parameters.

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?

An output schema already exists, so return values need not be fully specified, yet the description still summarizes the return (top-30 table plus summary facts and a unit notice). Args, behavior, and use case are all covered for a simple two-parameter read 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must document the parameters itself, and it does: company_name accepts a name or 6-digit ticker, and year is a business year that defaults to the prior year when empty. Both parameters are clarified with format and default semantics, compensating for the bare 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('타법인 출자현황을 조회합니다 — 이 회사가 어떤 법인들에 돈을 넣었는지') and enumerates the exact fields returned, so the agent knows precisely what this retrieves. It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_shareholder_info or track_capital_structure, but never names an alternative to confirm the boundary.

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?

Provides concrete usage contexts — tracking SPC/subsidiary networks of shell-company M&A and detecting related-party asset tunneling. This tells the agent when the tool is relevant, but offers no exclusions or explicit pointers to sibling tools for adjacent questions.

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