get_corporate_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the lookup action and output, but does not disclose potential issues like no-match behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether the query is exact or fuzzy. The minimal disclosure is insufficient for a tool without annotations.

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 at two sentences, front-loading the purpose and input/output. Every clause is necessary and adds value, with no redundant information.

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 (1 parameter, simple lookup) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides a sufficient overview. It covers the essential purpose and parameters. However, completeness is slightly reduced by the lack of usage guidelines and behavioral transparency, but for a basic tool it is adequate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by specifying that the query can be a Korean corporate name or 6-digit stock ticker code. This adds context beyond the schema's mere 'string' type. However, it does not specify format constraints or examples, so it only moderately adds meaning.

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's action ('Look up'), the resource ('Korean corporate'), the input ('name or 6-digit stock ticker code'), and the output ('DART corp_code and basic profile'). It distinguishes well from sibling tools like get_financial_anomalies, get_footnote_section, and get_stock_chart, which have different purposes.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (siblings). It implies usage when needing to look up corporate details, but lacks when-not conditions or comparisons, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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