get_financial_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the API returns only key accounts (14 types) and specifies the source API, which is useful context, but it does not disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, or error behavior.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then usage guidance, then parameter definitions. It is efficient and avoids waste, though the bilingual format may be slightly verbose for some audiences.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. It covers the key accounts available, the distinction from the full-statements tool, and all three parameters. The lack of annotations is mitigated by the description's explicit scope note, but it could still say more about data freshness or limitations.

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 defines the three parameters well: company_name (name or 6-digit code), year (4-digit year, default last year), and report_type (annual, half, q1, q3). However, it does not add syntax details beyond what might be inferred, and the enum-like values are not present in 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?

States a specific verb+resource (retrieve a company's key financial statements) and lists the exact accounts covered. It partially differentiates from the sibling get_financial_statements_full, but the primary purpose could be sharper about summary vs. detail distinction.

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?

Explicitly says when to use this tool ('훑어볼 때 쓴다') and names the alternative (get_financial_statements_full) with the condition that selects it (full account list needed). It does not state when-not to use this tool beyond that, so it falls short of a 5.

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