get_largest_shareholder_changes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It only states the action without disclosing traits like idempotency, speed, error behavior, or output format. For a simple query tool, this is insufficient.

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 very short and front-loaded with the Korean purpose, followed by English parameter descriptions. It is concise with no unnecessary words, though the structure could be more organized.

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 tool has no output schema and moderate complexity (3 required params, no enums). The description lacks information about return values, pagination, or error handling. It is not complete enough for an agent to fully understand the tool's usage.

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's 'Args' section explicitly explains each parameter: corp_code (8-digit DART code), bsns_year (YYYY format), reprt_code (with example values like '11011' for annual report). This adds significant meaning beyond the 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '최대주주 변동현황을 조회합니다.' (Inquires largest shareholder change status). The verb '조회' and resource '최대주주 변동현황' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from similar siblings like get_largest_shareholder or get_large_holding_report.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison with sibling tools. The description is minimal and does not help the agent decide between similar tools.

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