get_private_placement_fund_usage

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral aspects such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The word '조회합니다' implies a read operation, but this is minimal.

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 very concise: a single Korean sentence followed by a clearly structured Args section. No redundant information, every element adds value.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, many sibling tools), the description covers parameters well but lacks explanation of output format or expected results. An agent would benefit from knowing what the return data looks like, especially since no output schema exists.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter: corp_code (8-digit DART code), bsns_year (YYYY format), reprt_code (examples like '11011'). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema titles, though it doesn't explicitly state that all are required (the schema does, but description could reinforce).

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 '사모자금 사용내역을 조회합니다' which translates to 'Inquires private placement fund usage details', a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_public_offering_fund_usage' by contrasting private vs public fund usage, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 parameter details but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'get_public_offering_fund_usage' or other fund-related tools. Usage context is only implied by the tool name, not stated.

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