get_financial_summary

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears the full burden. It describes a read operation (retrieving financial statements) and implies no side effects. While it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, the context makes it clear. The description lacks disclosure of any potential limitations or data staleness.

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 structured with a header and an Args section, making it easy to parse. It is reasonably concise, though the Korean text could be slightly tightened. Every sentence informs parameter usage, and there is no redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It adequately covers input parameters and purpose. It could be improved by mentioning data availability constraints or that the tool only returns summary data, but overall it is sufficient for use.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well. It explains all three parameters: company_name (with example and code alternative), year (format and default behavior), and report_type (options and default). The defaults are clearly stated, adding value 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 retrieves financial statements including revenue, operating profit, net income, assets, and liabilities. It specifies the resource ('재무제표') and the verb ('조회'), and is distinct from sibling tools like compare_financials or scan_financial_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 example parameter values and defaults (e.g., year defaults to previous year, report_type defaults to annual). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like compare_financials or get_company_info, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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