get_executive_compensation_gmtsck

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

No annotations are provided. The description indicates a read-only operation ('조회'), but lacks information on authentication, rate limits, data freshness, error handling, or output behavior. For a tool with zero annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 and front-loaded with the purpose. The Args list is structured and uses a code-block style for readability. Every sentence is essential; no filler or repetition.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 3 required parameters, the description covers purpose and parameter details well. However, it lacks information about the output structure (what data is returned) and any prerequisites (e.g., needing the DART code). This minor gap prevents a perfect score.

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 has 0% coverage, but the description's Args section provides full details: corp_code as 8-character DART code, bsns_year as YYYY format, reprt_code with example values (e.g., '11011' for annual report). This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions, making parameter usage clear.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: to query total compensation of directors/auditors (amount approved at general meeting). The verb '조회합니다' (inquiry) and specific resource '이사·감사 전체 보수현황 (주총승인금액)' clearly distinguish it from other compensation tools listed as siblings, such as individual or type-based compensation tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_executive_compensation_individual or get_executive_compensation_total. The description implies its scope through the '주총승인금액' (general meeting approved amount) qualifier, but without direct comparisons or alternatives, clarity is only moderate.

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