get_individual_pay_over5_v2

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It correctly identifies the operation as a query ('조회합니다'), indicating it is read-only and non-destructive. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or potential return value biases.

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 (two sentences plus an Args list) and front-loads the purpose. The structure is clear, though the Args section could be formatted as a list for easier readability.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and parameters but lacks details about the return format, pagination, or any differences from V1. Given no output schema and the tool's simplicity, it is minimally complete but could be improved.

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 no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description fully explains all three parameters: corp_code (8-digit DART code), bsns_year (YYYY format), and reprt_code with specific report type codes. This compensates completely for the schema gap.

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 the compensation amount for the top 5 individuals with over 500 million KRW using the latest version (V2). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_individual_pay_over5 (V1) and get_executive_compensation_individual by specifying the exact scope and version.

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 implies this is the latest version ('최신 버전'), suggesting it should be preferred over V1, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other executive compensation tools. No alternative tools or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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