회사·기업집단 식별

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

With no annotations, the description carries behavioral disclosure itself. It transparently explains the ambiguous-entity behavior, the EGROUP_API_KEY requirement, the first-call cost of ~103 portal requests, and one-year caching. It does not describe not-found statuses or full response shape, but the disclosed behaviors are material and well covered.

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: one clear main sentence followed by two high-signal bullets. Every sentence adds practical value, with no filler 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 the 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the main workflow, ambiguity handling, and expensive side-effects well. The only notable gap is the absence of explicit behavior for not-found or invalid inputs, but the overall definition remains sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining the cost/caching implications of includeGroup=true and the retry strategy for ambiguous queries, which aids correct use.

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 action ('풀어줍니다' = resolves) applied to concrete inputs (company name, stock code, corporate code, registration number, group name) and outputs (corp_code, stock_code, registration number, group). It is clearly distinguished from the sibling disclosure/financial tools by its identifier-resolution scope.

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 helpful same-tool guidance, such as re-calling with a candidate's corp_code when status is ambiguous yielding and the strong requirement for includeGroup=true. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over sibling alternatives or when not to use it.

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