get_corporate_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden. It indicates a read operation ('조회'), and details that timeline mode collects events in parallel and integrates them by date, revealing batch behavior. This is valuable context beyond a simple query.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then detailing modes. Every sentence provides essential information with zero waste. Highly efficient.

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 tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main functionality and mode differentiation well. It could optionally mention the return format, but the core behavior is sufficiently described for an agent to use correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the purpose of each mode and the automatic capital-related event selection in timeline mode when event_types is omitted. This goes beyond the schema's enum lists.

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 queries 36 types of corporate events from DS005 major reports. It distinguishes two modes (single and timeline) and, given sibling tools are about other financial data, this tool's purpose is unique and well-defined.

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 explicitly explains when to use each mode: single for detailed event_type inquiry, timeline for capital-related events in parallel and date-sorted. It positions timeline as a 'killer mode' for extracting capital stress narratives. No explicit when-not, but context is clear.

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