get_outside_director_changes

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

No annotations provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required permissions, or response format. It only states the basic purpose, leaving the agent to infer safety and side effects.

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 purpose sentence followed by structured parameter definitions. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the parameter format could be integrated more smoothly.

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?

Given the simple structure (3 required params, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and parameter details. However, it omits any mention of return data structure, which would help the agent process results. For a straightforward query, it is 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?

The JSON schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's docstring provides clear explanations for all three parameters: corp_code, bsns_year, and reprt_code with examples. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type/title alone.

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/retrieves) and the resource (사외이사 및 변동현황/outside director changes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, each focusing on specific corporate governance or financial items.

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 explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives. With many sibling tools querying different corporate events, such guidance would be helpful but is absent. The parameter descriptions imply it's for querying specific time periods and report types.

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