get_overseas_delisting_decision

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states it 'inquires' (reads) information but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, auth requirements, rate limits, or response format. Missing key context for agent decision-making.

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 extremely concise: one line for purpose, then a bullet-style argument list. No redundant information. Every sentence adds value. Ideal length.

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 moderate complexity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose and parameter formats but omits output return format, pagination, error handling, or any result limitations. It is minimally adequate but could be more complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaningful details: corp_code is an 8-digit DART corporate code, bgn_de and end_de are dates in YYYYMMDD format (optional). This goes beyond the schema's type and title, helping the agent format parameters correctly.

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 it queries key information on overseas securities market delisting decisions from major matters reports. It uses specific verb ('조회합니다' - inquire) and resource ('해외 증권시장 주권 상장폐지 결정'). While it distinguishes from the sibling 'get_overseas_delisting' by focusing on 'decision', it could be more explicit about the distinction. Overall, purpose is clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., get_overseas_listing, get_overseas_listing_decision). No mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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