get_other_asset_acquisition

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

No annotations provided; the description only says 'queries', implying read-only but not explicitly. No disclosure of behavioral traits like authentication, rate limits, or error handling. Minimal 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?

One clear sentence followed by a well-structured Args block. No wasted words, front-loaded with purpose. Efficiently conveys both purpose and parameter details.

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?

For a simple query tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose and parameters but lacks output format details or behavioral context. Adequate but has gaps.

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 includes an Args section explaining each parameter (corp_code: 8-digit DART code, bgn_de/end_de: YYYYMMDD format, optional), adding meaning beyond the schema, which has no property descriptions. Fully compensates for 0% schema coverage.

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 specifies '자산양수도(기타), 풋백옵션' (other asset acquisition, put-back option) as the resource, and uses the verb '조회합니다' (queries), clearly distinguishing from siblings like 'get_business_acquisition' and 'get_tangible_asset_acquisition' by focusing on '기타' and put-back options.

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 siblings or prerequisites. The description only states what it does, lacking explicit context for selection or exclusions.

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