get_segments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It communicates the read-only retrieval nature and the metric list, but does not disclose output structure, pagination, or behavior for companies without segment disclosures. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the resource and output metrics, the second gives the strategic use case and the key sibling distinction. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

For a read-only retrieval tool with detailed schema documentation, the description plus schema covers the EDINET code prerequisite, period/quarter/fiscal year semantics, and the key alternative. Without an output schema, it does not specify the exact response shape, but the listed metrics make the main result clear enough.

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 schema fully documents all four parameters and their constraints, including code conversion guidance and quarter validity, so the description does not need to add parameter detail.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get the reported business-segment breakdown for one company') and enumerates concrete fields returned. It also distinguishes itself from get_financials by noting consolidated totals cannot show segment-level profitability, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 says to use it when the task is seeing which part of a business earns money, and contrasts with get_financials. The schema's code description adds a clear prerequisite: resolve names/securities codes to EDINET codes via search_companies first.

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