Corporate actions

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral detail: Yahoo supplies exact ex-dates and cash amounts, KAP disclosures are classified via a keyword table with an 'other' fallback, KAP body amounts are not parsed, and callers should read the referenced disclosure. It also discloses optional process-status returns.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place: source distinction, classification behavior, KAP parsing limitation, and optional status output. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 annotations, output schema, and reasonably strong parameter descriptions, the description covers the important non-obvious context: source-specific accuracy, KAP classification limitations, the need to read referenced disclosures, and optional process status retrieval. Nothing critical about how to use the tool correctly is missing.

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?

Most parameters are already documented in the schema (ticker, dates, limit, include_kap, process_ref_ids), so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds meaning where the schema is thinner: process_ref_ids maps to 'optionally returns KAP process statuses', and the 'other' type is explained as the unmatched-keyword fallback.

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 names a specific resource (corporate actions for a company) and enumerates the event categories covered: dividends, bonus/rights issues, capital changes, buybacks, and general meetings. It also distinguishes the two data sources, Yahoo and KAP, making the tool's scope clear relative to nearby disclosure/quote 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?

The description implies when the tool is appropriate—when a caller needs corporate-action events for a single BIST ticker—and explains Yahoo vs. KAP behavior. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or gives when-not-to-use guidance, such as directing reference-id status lookups to kap_status instead.

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