get_multi_company_account

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 only indicates a read operation (retrieve) without mentioning safety, idempotency, permissions, or side effects. The constraint of max 100 companies is mentioned in the parameter description but not as tool behavior. Overall, transparency is low.

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: a single sentence overview followed by a structured Args section. No extraneous information, and the most important details (overview and parameter formats) are front-loaded. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 adequately covers input parameters but fails to describe the output. With no output schema, the agent cannot predict what data the tool returns beyond 'main financial accounts'. Given the complexity of the domain and the lack of output specification, the description is incomplete.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description's parameter details add significant value. It specifies the format for corp_code (comma-separated, max 100, example), bsns_year (YYYY, example), and reprt_code (specific code mappings with descriptions). This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, though it doesn't define what each parameter represents fundamentally.

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 'main financial accounts' for multiple companies at once, using the verb '조회' (retrieve/lookup). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_single_company_account (single company) and get_multi_financial_index (financial index vs. accounts), but 'main financial accounts' is somewhat vague.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The parameter descriptions imply usage for multiple companies, but there is no guidance on when-not or alternative tools. The context from the tool name and sibling list suggests it's for batch retrieval, but explicit guidelines are missing.

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