track_capital_structure

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

With no annotations provided, the description should fully disclose behavior. It explains that it aggregates events and returns totals, concentration, yearly data, time series, and flags. However, it does not mention whether it modifies data, permissions needed, or rate limits. The output description provides some transparency but is not exhaustive.

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 with a clear purpose statement, followed by bullet-pointed Args and Returns. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value without 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?

The description covers purpose, parameters, and return values, which is sufficient for a tool with 2 parameters and an existing output schema. However, an example of output or more detail on the 'rhythm detection' could enhance completeness.

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 description includes an Args section explaining both parameters: company_name (company name or 6-digit stock code) and lookback_years (1-5, defaults to 3). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, which had 0% description coverage.

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 aggregates capital events (증자·감자·자사주·CB/BW/EB/RCPS 등) chronologically and detects capital manipulation rhythm. It uses specific verbs and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'analyze_company_risk' or 'build_event_timeline'.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks guidance on prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over others, such as 'track_debt_balance' or 'track_insider_trading'.

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