get_capital_change_status

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

No annotations provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, error handling, or limits. The description only states what it does, not its side effects.

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?

Single paragraph plus parameter list is concise. Main purpose is front-loaded. Could be slightly more structured with separate sections.

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?

Adequate for a simple retrieval tool with required parameters, but missing output description. No output schema exists, so the agent has no idea about the return structure. Could mention what data fields are returned.

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 provides detailed semantics for each parameter: corp_code (8-digit DART code), bsns_year (YYYY format), reprt_code (with example codes). This adds significant meaning beyond 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 explicitly states it queries capital increase/reduction history. The verb '조회합니다' (query) and resource '증자(감자) 현황' are clear. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like get_capital_reduction (which might be more specific).

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 vs alternatives like get_capital_reduction or get_free_capital_increase. No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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