재무제표 조회

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does so well: it explains that amounts come as raw/value/display, that change is prior-period difference, that cumulative treatment applies only when cumulative fields exist, that OFS falls back to CFS, and that some companies may have no financial statements at all. This is substantial behavioral disclosure beyond the schema.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main purpose appears first, followed by four tight bullets, each adding distinct value. There is no fluff or repetition of schema content.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description covers a lot: defaults, fallback behavior, value formats, change semantics, and availability caveats. It is slightly incomplete regarding error behavior or what the response looks like beyond amounts and key_metrics, but it is still quite complete for a query tool of this complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some integration context (key_metrics fields usable as downstream inputs) and output semantics, but it does not meaningfully expand on the input parameters themselves, which are already well documented in 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 states a specific verb and resource: '단일회사 재무제표를 조회합니다' (retrieve single-company financial statements), and it gives a concrete default (latest annual report's balance sheet). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_group_structure or read_disclosure because it scopes to single-company financial statement data.

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 clear usage context: defaults for year, report type, statement type, and fs_div fallback. It also warns that non-externally-audited companies may have no DART financial statements and suggests portal financials as an alternative for group affiliates. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool to prefer instead, so it stops short of full when-not-to-use guidance.

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