get_company

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose more behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation but lacks details on side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or data freshness. The list of returned fields is helpful but incomplete for full transparency.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and included data fields. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and the type of data returned. It could be improved by mentioning return format or behavior when the company is not found, but it is largely 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?

Schema coverage is 100% because the single parameter 'corp' has a description (company name/stock code/corp_code). The tool description does not add additional semantic value beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 company overview and lists specific data fields (industry, establishment date, representative, etc.). It uses a specific verb (조회합니다) and resource (기업의 개황), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on financials or holdings.

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 implies the tool is for basic company information but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or if additional tools might be needed for specific fields.

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