get_equity_investment_acquisition

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as destructive nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or output format. It only describes parameters.

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 one-line purpose followed by an Args list. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the Korean language in the purpose line may be less accessible to an English-speaking AI.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks completeness. It does not describe the output, limitations, or how it fits with sibling tools, making it insufficient for confident selection.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description explains each parameter: corp_code as an 8-digit DART code, and bgn_de/end_de as optional dates in YYYYMMDD format. This adds meaning beyond the schema, though it could be more explicit about the date range's role.

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 information on decisions to acquire equity and investment certificates of other corporations. However, among many sibling tools dealing with equity (e.g., get_equity_investment_transfer, get_equity_securities_acquisition), it does not distinguish itself.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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