get_executives

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the tool is a query (fetches data) but does not mention any behavioral aspects like required permissions, rate limits, pagination, or whether data is historical. The description is too minimal to ensure safe invocation.

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 short and to the point, with a clear purpose line and three parameter lines. It avoids unnecessary text and is easily scannable. Could be improved by using bullet points for parameters, but overall very concise.

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 has 3 required parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more context about what the response contains, any constraints (e.g., only for Korean public companies), and how this tool differs from similar ones. Incomplete for a complex domain.

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% description coverage, but the description adds meaning for all three parameters: corp_code explained as DART company 8-digit identifier, bsns_year with format example, and reprt_code with enumerated values. This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 retrieves registered executive list and compensation ('등기임원 명단 및 보수'). It uses specific Korean terms that match the tool name. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_executive_compensation_* which focus on specific compensation details.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools covering executive compensation (e.g., get_executive_compensation_individual, get_executive_compensation_total), the description should indicate that this tool returns general executive info and compensation, not granular breakdowns.

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