get_executive_compensation_individual_v2

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states it retrieves data (read operation), but omits any behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or whether modifications are possible. For a financial data tool, more transparency is needed.

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 one sentence followed by a parameter list, with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the purpose and concise, earning its 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 (many sibling financial tools, no output schema), the description provides basic functionality but lacks output format, pagination, data freshness, or limitations. Adequate but not complete.

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%, so description compensates with parameter descriptions: corp_code (8-digit unique number), bsns_year (YYYY), reprt_code (with example report codes). This adds meaning beyond schema titles, though reprt_code could include more explanation of values.

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 individual compensation data for directors/auditors with compensation over 500 million won, using version 2.0. The verb '조회' (retrieve) and resource '이사·감사 개인별 보수현황' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_executive_compensation_individual or get_individual_pay_over5, which may have similar scope.

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 such as get_executive_compensation_individual or get_executive_compensation_total. Missing context on prerequisites, data coverage, or reporting periods.

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