get_dissolution_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states it performs an inquiry, but does not specify read-only nature, auth requirements, rate limits, or error handling. For a simple retrieval tool, this is insufficient transparency.

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 extremely concise: one clear sentence stating the purpose, followed by a bulleted list of parameters. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is efficient with no wasted words.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description does not specify the structure or content of the returned report. It only mentions '주요 정보' (major information). Given the complexity of financial reports and the large number of sibling tools, more detail on output fields or typical usage 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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the tool description explains each parameter: corp_code is an 8-digit DART code, bgn_de and end_de are dates in YYYYMMDD format and optional. This adds valuable meaning beyond the schema, compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 information about dissolution reason occurrence from the major matters report. It uses a specific verb ('조회합니다') and resource ('해산사유 발생 - 주요사항보고서'), making the purpose unambiguous. The name itself is descriptive, and the description adds context that differentiates it from sibling tools that handle other report types.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of prerequisites, exclusion criteria, or links to sibling tools. An agent would have to infer usage solely from the tool name and context.

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