get_executive_compensation_individual

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic operation. It does not disclose behaviors such as error handling, data limits, authentication needs, or what happens if no data is found.

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 remarkably concise: one line for purpose followed by parameter details. No superfluous information, all sentences earn their place.

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 complexity of a tool within a large family of similar executive compensation tools, the description lacks distinguishing features, return format, pagination, or error handling. It is incomplete for an AI agent to confidently select this tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning by explaining each parameter (corp_code, bsns_year, reprt_code) with examples and format. It does not cover possible values for reprt_code beyond examples.

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 queries individual compensation status for directors/auditors over 500 million won, specifying the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like get_individual_pay_over5 or get_executive_compensation_individual_v2.

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. The description gives parameter formats but lacks context about suitable scenarios or exclusions.

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