get_audit_opinion_history

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the tool combines three endpoints and returns a Korean narrative, which is helpful. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication, or safety beyond the implied read-only nature of '조회'.

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 (5 sentences) and well-structured: one-line summary, implementation details, parameter documentation, and return value. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 moderate complexity (2 params, combined endpoints, output schema present), the description covers purpose, parameters, and return format adequately. It lacks error handling details or data source reliability notes, but overall it is sufficiently complete for the agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so with an Args section explaining company_name as company name or 6-digit stock code and lookback_years as 1-10 (forced to 5 if out of range). This adds meaningful constraints beyond the schema's basic type info.

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 it retrieves audit opinion history, auditor changes, and non-audit service history, combining three DART endpoints. The verb '조회합니다' (retrieve) and specific resource make the purpose distinct from siblings like get_company_info or get_financial_summary, which cover different 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 implies usage for audit-related history but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. No guidance on prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to infer from the resource description.

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