대규모내부거래 기한 감사

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It reveals that results are candidates, not final; that EGROUP_API_KEY is required for group audits; that uncovered companies are omitted; that range_too_large is a possible response; and that '0 candidates' does not imply compliance. This is exemplary transparency for a high-stakes audit 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?

The description is long but every sentence earns its place, covering output semantics, exclusions, error behavior, authentication, and legal caveats. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the bulleted caveats are clearly separated. For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, this level of detail is warranted, not padded.

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 no annotations, no output schema, six parameters, and a complex legal audit context, the description is remarkably complete. It explains inputs, return contents, exclusions, coverage semantics, error handling, authentication requirements, and limitations. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its results safely.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful parameter-related context beyond the schema. It clarifies that the period is based on the original filing's receipt date for both from and to, that group audits require EGROUP_API_KEY, and that the group/companies parameter choices interact with coverage behavior. This earns a 4.

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 names a specific verb (audit), a specific resource (J001 large internal transaction disclosures), and a specific objective (finding delayed-submission candidates by comparing receipt date with board resolution date). It also draws clear boundaries, stating it only covers track A (resolution-based) filings and cannot detect non-disclosures, which distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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 gives strong context about when this tool is appropriate and when it is not: it excludes corrections, special exemption forms, and undisclosed transactions, and it explains coverage limitations. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like detect_undisclosed_transactions, but the exclusions are clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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