get_free_capital_increase

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states it retrieves information, implying a safe read operation, but does not mention permissions, rate limits, data freshness, error handling, or what happens with invalid inputs. This is insufficient for a mutation-free 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 with a clear two-sentence structure followed by an Args list. It is front-loaded and efficient, with no redundant information. Slight improvement possible by integrating the Args into prose, but overall well-structured.

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?

Despite 3 parameters and no output schema, the description does not describe the return format, pagination, or error conditions. For a tool with many siblings, additional context about what constitutes 'key information' would be valuable. The description leaves the agent with unanswered operational details.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining each parameter: corp_code as DART enterprise number (8 digits), bgn_de and end_de as dates in YYYYMMDD format, optional. This compensates for 0% schema coverage. However, it could include more detail like default behavior or inclusiveness.

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 key information on free capital increase decisions from a major matters report, using a specific verb (조회합니다). The name 'get_free_capital_increase' aligns with this. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_paid_capital_increase' but does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'get_paid_free_capital_increase'. The resource is defined precisely.

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. With many sibling tools for different financial disclosures, the agent would benefit from context on when to choose this one. The description provides no usage context, such as prerequisites or conditions.

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