get_division_securities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. However, it only describes the basic function without mentioning side effects, rate limits, pagination, or data freshness. It does not specify if the operation is read-only or if any state changes occur.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose. The parameter list is structured clearly with labels. However, the mix of Korean and English might reduce readability for some.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's intent and parameter formats. However, it lacks information about return values, error handling, or any limitations, which could be important for an agent to use it correctly.

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 explicitly states the format (8-digit for corp_code, YYYYMMDD for dates) and requirement (corp_code is 필수, i.e., required). This adds significant value beyond the schema, which has no parameter descriptions and only 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 clearly states it retrieves key information on division-related securities reports (분할 관련 증권신고서 주요 정보를 조회합니다). This verb-resource pair is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like get_division_decision which deals with decisions.

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. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions relative to sibling tools.

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