get_capital_reduction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only implies a read operation via '조회합니다' but does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, return format, or any side effects. Significant gaps exist.

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 with a single main sentence followed by an Args section. Every part serves a purpose, and the key information is front-loaded. No redundancy.

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 explains the source (주요사항보고서) but does not describe the return values or output structure. Given no output schema, this is a notable omission. The parameter list is well covered, but overall completeness is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 meaning beyond the schema by explaining each parameter: 'corp_code' as 8-digit DART code, 'bgn_de' and 'end_de' as date range with format. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this provides valuable guidance.

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 verb ('조회합니다' - queries) and the resource ('감자 결정 정보' - capital reduction decision information), providing a specific purpose. While the sibling list contains many capital-related tools, the name and description together distinguish it well.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any conditions/usage notes. The description only states what the tool does, not when it is appropriate.

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