get_paid_capital_increase

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that data is retrieved, but omits behavioral traits like read-only nature, data source, pagination, or error conditions. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 brief, with a clear sentence followed by parameter list. It is front-loaded and free of fluff, but could benefit from more structured formatting (e.g., bullet points).

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 covers purpose and parameter meanings, but lacks usage guidance, output description, and behavioral context. For a tool with 3 parameters and many siblings, it is minimally complete but has clear 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?

Although schema coverage is 0%, the description includes parameter explanations: corp_code as 8-digit DART code, bgn_de and end_de as dates with YYYYMMDD format and optionality. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema (which only has type and title).

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 information about '유상증자 결정' (paid capital increase decisions) from major reports. The verb '조회' (retrieve) and resource are specific, and the tool name distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_free_capital_increase'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_free_capital_increase' or 'get_paid_free_capital_increase'. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given.

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