get_business_suspension_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the purpose ('inquiry') but omits any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if no data is found. The minimal description does not compensate for missing annotations.

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 concise: one sentence for purpose and a short parameter list. It front-loads the purpose. However, the parameter details could be integrated into a single sentence rather than a separate block, but it remains efficient.

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 simple query tool with 3 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description covers purpose and parameter meanings. However, it lacks information about return values, pagination, error handling, or how to differentiate from sibling tools, making it minimally adequate.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, but the description includes an 'Args' section that adds meaning: corp_code is an 8-digit DART company code, bgn_de and end_de are optional dates in YYYYMMDD format. This significantly helps an agent understand parameter semantics beyond the bare schema 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 business suspension information from a specific report (영업정지 - 주요사항보고서). The verb '조회' (inquiry) and resource are explicit. However, among many sibling report tools (e.g., get_bankruptcy_report, get_rehabilitation_report), it does not differentiate itself, so it loses a point.

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 alternatives. Given the large number of sibling report tools, the description should indicate scenarios or prerequisites for business suspension queries. It provides none.

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