get_division_decision

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

With no annotations provided, the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or rate limits. While the tool appears to be read-only, this is not explicitly stated.

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 brief but contains redundancy: the English args list largely mirrors the input schema. It is front-loaded with the Korean purpose, but the structure could be improved by integrating parameter descriptions more naturally.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and no output schema, the description should provide more context about expected results and usage. It lacks information about return format, typical use cases, or how the data relates to other corporate actions.

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 to parameters beyond the schema by providing format hints (e.g., '8자리' for corp_code, 'YYYYMMDD' for dates). However, it does not explain the purpose of date range parameters (e.g., reporting period) nor covers the optionality semantics.

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 'company division decision' information from a major matters report, specifying the resource and action. While it distinguishes from siblings by naming the specific decision type, it does not contrast with similar tools like 'get_merger_decision'.

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 versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for using this specific tool among many similar corporate event tools.

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