get_minority_shareholders

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

No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. It merely states the action without transparency.

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 (one sentence plus parameter list) and well-structured. It front-loads the purpose and then enumerates parameters clearly. Slight improvement could be uniform formatting of parameter explanations.

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 parameter formats and valid values, which is essential given no output schema or annotations. However, it lacks information on the output structure, pagination, error handling, or any behavioral context, making it minimally adequate.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description adds significant value by explaining each parameter: corp_code is '8자리 DART 기업 고유번호', bsns_year is 'YYYY', and reprt_code lists valid codes with their report types. This compensates well 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 verb '조회' (query) and resource '소액주주 현황' (minority shareholder status), making the purpose immediately clear. It is distinct from sibling tools that handle other specific reports.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage independently.

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