get_business_acquisition

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry burden. It indicates a read operation ('조회') but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what happens when no results. Minimal but not misleading.

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?

Description is concise with a clear purpose sentence followed by parameter list. The Args block slightly rephrases schema but is acceptable. No redundant information.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to provide context on return format, pagination, or connection to other tools. Given the many sibling tools, more context on when to use this specific one is needed.

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 0%, but the description adds meaning for all three parameters: corp_code is a DART 8-digit code, dates are in YYYYMMDD format with optional status. This compensates for schema gaps, though format details are brief.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves business acquisition decision information from major matters reports. The verb '조회합니다' (retrieves) is specific and the subject '영업양수 결정' distinguishes it from siblings like get_business_transfer or get_equity_investment_acquisition, though not explicitly differentiating.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings or under what conditions. The description does not mention prerequisites, recommended scenarios, or exclusions.

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