get_business_transfer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. The term '조회' hints at a retrieval operation, but this is implicit and insufficient for safe invocation.

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, consisting of a single purpose sentence followed by a parameter list. No unnecessary words or redundancy. The front-loaded sentence immediately conveys the tool's primary function.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and parameter formats but lacks details about the return value (no output schema) and does not indicate which parameters are required (though inferred from schema). For a simple retrieval tool with three parameters, the coverage is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 description adds meaningful format details beyond the input schema: corp_code is specified as an 8-digit DART company code, and bgn_de/end_de are date strings in YYYYMMDD format. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensation elevates the score above baseline.

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 verb (조회하다 - inquire/retrieve) and resource (영업양도 결정 - business transfer decision from major matters report), which clearly identifies the tool's function. It distinguishes from siblings because siblings cover different corporate actions such as audit fees, bankruptcy, bond issuance, etc.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus its alternatives (e.g., other get_* tools for different corporate events). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and description.

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