lookup_known_actor

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

No annotations provided, but description fully discloses scope: returns only facts, no risk scores, and sources (DART, etc.). Notes need for original verification. Could mention rate limits or auth, but appropriate for a read-only lookup 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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then caveats, then argument. Some redundancy in emphasizing no risk judgment twice, but overall efficient. Could be slightly more streamlined.

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?

Simple tool with one param and output schema exists. Covers what it does, what it doesn't do, and caveats. Missing maybe whether it supports partial names, but output schema likely covers return structure.

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?

Only parameter is 'name'. Description restates it as '조회할 인물명' without adding format, encoding, or types. With 0% schema coverage, it should provide more (e.g., how to handle multiple names, language).

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?

Description clearly states it queries a public record registry by person name for factual company appearances, explicitly distinguishing from risk judgment tools. The phrase '사실 표기 — 판정 아님' sets it apart from siblings like analyze_company_risk.

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 states when to use (factual registry lookup) and when not (if risk judgment needed). Mentions caveats of same-name possibility and need to verify original source, guiding proper usage.

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