get_executive_compensation_total

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the query purpose without explicitly confirming read-only nature, or mentioning any side effects, security, or rate limits. The description is minimal for a query tool.

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 and well-structured: one line for purpose, then a clear Args section. Every sentence adds value, and the critical information is front-loaded.

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 tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate for basic usage. However, it lacks any description of the output format or data structure, which would be helpful for an agent to interpret results.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by defining each parameter: corp_code as an 8-digit DART code, bsns_year as YYYY format, and reprt_code with example values ('11011' for annual report, etc.). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema.

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 states the tool's purpose clearly: '이사·감사 전체의 보수현황을 조회합니다' (queries the total compensation of all directors and auditors). This specific verb and resource distinguish it from sibling tools like get_executive_compensation_individual and get_executive_compensation_type.

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 compared to alternatives. It only describes the parameters, leaving the agent without context for proper selection among many executive compensation tools.

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