get_single_company_account

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 correctly identifies the tool as a read operation (조회) and hints at a prerequisite (get_corp_codes for obtaining corp_code). However, it does not disclose data freshness, rate limits, error handling, or whether the data is real-time or historical, which would be beneficial for an agent.

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 sentence for the main purpose, then a structured 'Args:' block. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded for quick understanding.

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 that there is no output schema, the description does a good job listing example accounts returned (total assets, liabilities, etc.), which gives the agent a reasonable expectation of the output. However, it does not specify the exact structure (e.g., whether it's a list or object, field names), nor are possible error conditions mentioned. For a simple query tool, this is fairly complete but could be improved.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema properties have no descriptions. The tool description compensates fully by explaining each parameter's meaning, format, and examples (e.g., corp_code: DART company 8-digit code from get_corp_codes; bsns_year: YYYY; reprt_code: report code with examples). This adds significant value beyond the empty schema.

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 '조회합니다' (retrieves) and the resource '주요 재무제표 계정' (major financial statement accounts) with specific examples (total assets, liabilities, revenue, etc.). It is specific and distinguishes from other tools like 'get_single_financial_index' which likely focuses on a single index.

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 detailed parameter guidance, including how to obtain corp_code via get_corp_codes, the format for bsns_year, and examples for reprt_code. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_single_full_financial or get_multi_company_account), nor are prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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