get_company_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It states the tool retrieves an overview but discloses no behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. The minimal disclosure is inadequate for a read tool.

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: one sentence stating purpose and a short Args section. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the structure could be improved (e.g., separate English translation).

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 presence of an output schema alleviates the need to describe return values. However, with no annotations and 22 sibling tools, the description lacks contextual guidance on when to choose this tool, making it only moderately complete.

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 lacks any description for company_name. The description adds crucial meaning by specifying that it accepts either a company name or a 6-digit stock code, with an example. This significantly aids correct parameter usage.

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 uses the specific verb '조회한다' (retrieve) and resource '기업 개요' (company overview), listing example fields (representative, industry, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_financial_summary or get_shareholder_info, which focus on 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 only explains the input format (company name or stock code) but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tools are mentioned.

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