get_tangible_asset_acquisition

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

The description implies a read-only query ('조회합니다'), but does not explicitly state that the tool is safe or non-destructive. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. Missing details on authentication, rate limits, or side effects.

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 explaining the tool's purpose followed by a bullet-style list of parameters. No redundant information, but the structure could be slightly improved with clearer separation between description and parameter list.

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 tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and parameters. However, it does not describe the return format or value ranges, which would help an agent understand what to expect. Missing context like 'no optional params' for default behavior.

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?

All three parameters are described with format hints (e.g., '8자리' for corp_code, 'YYYYMMDD' for dates) and optionality. Since the schema has 0% description coverage, this provides essential meaning beyond the schema types.

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 that the tool retrieves major information on tangible asset acquisition decisions ('유형자산 양수 결정 주요 정보를 조회합니다'). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_tangible_asset_transfer' and other acquisition-related tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any mention of prerequisites, use cases, or scenarios where other tools might be more appropriate. The sibling list is extensive but not referenced.

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