get_company_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation but does not explicitly state it is read-only, safe, or idempotent. It also does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, or error handling. The parameter constraint (8-digit DART code) is mentioned, but broader behavioral traits are missing.

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 explaining the purpose followed by a brief parameter note. It is front-loaded with the main function, contains no redundancy, and every word adds value. The structure is clean and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It lists example return fields, which compensates for the lack of an output schema. However, it could be more precise about the exact payload structure or potential variations, which would improve completeness.

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 input schema provides no description for 'corp_code' (0% coverage). The description compensates by specifying that corp_code is the DART company unique number, 8 digits, and required. This adds crucial context beyond the schema's type-only definition, helping the agent understand the parameter's format and origin.

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 basic company information, listing specific fields (company name, representative, business number, address, etc.). The verb '조회' (retrieve) and resource '기업의 기본 정보' (basic company info) are specific. Among many sibling tools that focus on specific financial or corporate data, this tool's purpose is distinct and well-defined.

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 its many siblings. The description does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or scenarios where another tool might be more appropriate. The long list of sibling tools highlights the need for such guidance, but it is absent.

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