get_single_full_financial

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool retrieves data and includes all accounts, but omits details like read-only nature, authorization requirements, rate limits, or response characteristics. The minimal behavioral context is insufficient.

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 compact at 6 lines, with the main purpose in the first sentence and parameter details listed clearly. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. The structure is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 thoroughly covers input parameters but does not explain the output format or what the financial statements contain beyond '모든 계정 포함'. Given the complexity (4 required params with formatting), the input guidance is strong. The missing output description is a minor gap, but acceptable for a retrieval tool without output schema.

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%, so the description fully compensates by providing detailed explanations for all four parameters: corp_code (8-digit DART code from get_corp_codes), bsns_year (YYYY format), reprt_code (mapped to periods), and fs_div (OFS/CFS options). This adds crucial semantic meaning beyond the schema's bare property names.

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 states '단일 회사의 전체 재무제표를 조회합니다 (모든 계정 포함)' which clearly indicates the tool retrieves full financial statements of a single company including all accounts. This specific verb and resource distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_single_company_account (which may retrieve partial data) and get_multi_company_account.

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 guidance (e.g., corp_code from get_corp_codes, reprt_code mappings) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of context for choosing this over other financial data tools.

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