get_overseas_delisting

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

No annotations are present, so the description must bear the full burden. While it indicates a read operation (retrieve), it fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions, rate limits, pagination, or data freshness. The description adds no transparency beyond the obvious.

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 succinct with a clear structure: a one-sentence purpose followed by bullet-like parameter explanations. However, the first sentence is somewhat repetitive. It effectively communicates needed information without excess.

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 lacks an output schema and the description does not mention return values or output structure. Given the complexity of the domain (overseas delisting), the agent would benefit from knowing what the response contains. The description is incomplete for making informed invocation decisions.

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 explicitly explains the meaning and format of each parameter (e.g., 'corp_code: DART 기업 고유번호 (8자리)', 'bgn_de: 시작일 (YYYYMMDD, 선택)'), which adds value beyond the input schema that only provides titles. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates.

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 overseas securities market delisting information from a report. The verb '조회합니다' (retrieves) and specific resource are given. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'get_overseas_delisting_decision', leaving ambiguity about the exact scope.

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, exclusions, or context. The agent must infer usage solely from the name and description.

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