get_treasury_stock_trust_terminate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool retrieves information, implying a read operation, but does not clarify auth requirements, rate limits, side effects, or return format. For a data retrieval tool, more detail on what is returned or potential limitations is expected.

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, consisting of one sentence stating the purpose followed by a bulleted parameter list. It is front-loaded with the Korean purpose and provides parameter details in English, using minimal text with no redundancy.

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 adequately covers input parameters but lacks information about the output. With no output schema, the agent does not know what fields or structure the response contains. Additionally, there is no mention of pagination or error handling. Given the tool's simplicity, some gaps remain, but the core purpose and parameters are well-defined.

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 description explicitly explains all three parameters: corp_code (8-digit DART company code), bgn_de (start date, YYYYMMDD, optional), and end_de (end date, YYYYMMDD, optional). Since the input schema provides no descriptions, the description compensates fully, clearly specifying format and optionality.

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 on treasury stock acquisition trust contract termination decisions from major matters reports. The verb '조회합니다' (retrieves) and specific resource '자기주식취득 신탁계약 해지 결정' make the purpose unambiguous. Among siblings, it is distinct from similar tools like 'get_treasury_stock_trust_conclude' which covers conclusion rather than termination.

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?

There are no guidelines on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not provide contextual clues or mention exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and purpose.

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