get_executive_compensation

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as data freshness, performance limits, or side effects. It only states what it does, not how it behaves or what constraints exist. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the burden but doesn't fully address it.

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 extremely concise with only two sentences, no redundancy, and places the core purpose first followed by a helpful alternative reference. Every word earns its place.

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 4 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description covers the main composite query functionality and points to an alternative, but does not explain return format, parameter constraints (e.g., year minimum), or how the report parameter affects results. The schema fills some gaps, but the description could be more 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 50% (descriptions for corp and sections only). The description adds value by explaining the six possible sections in prose, reinforcing the sections parameter, but does not clarify the year or report parameters beyond what the schema provides (e.g., year range, quarterly options). Thus, it provides marginal improvement over 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?

The description clearly states it performs a composite query of 6 specific executive compensation sections, using strong verbs like '합성 조회' (composite query) and explicitly lists all sections, distinguishing it from sibling tool get_periodic_report which handles individual sections.

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?

It explicitly tells when to use this tool (for all six sections at once) and when to use the alternative (individual sections via get_periodic_report), providing clear usage context and exclusions.

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