get_audit_fee

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes a read-only retrieval with no side effects, which is acceptable for this type of tool. However, it does not disclose any potential constraints like data availability, authorization, or rate limits, leaving some behavioral traits implicit.

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 very concise: a single line stating the purpose followed by a parameter list. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy, and it is front-loaded with the core intent.

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 tool's simplicity (3 required params, no output schema, read-only), the description is adequate but could be enhanced. It explains the parameters but does not describe the return format or data structure, which might be important for an agent to properly use the output. For a retrieval tool, specifying the response fields would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema has 0% coverage (no parameter descriptions in the JSON schema), but the description's 'Args' section fully explains each parameter: corp_code as 8-digit DART code, bsns_year as YYYY, and reprt_code with specific report codes. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's titles.

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 the tool retrieves audit fee status (감사보수 현황) in Korean, matching its name. The verb '조회' (inquiry) and resource are specific, and the tool is distinct from siblings like get_audit_opinion or get_non_audit_service.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the name and context imply it is for audit fee records, and the parameter list is provided. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are given, so usage guidance is implied but not explicit.

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