event_business_disposal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description's '조회합니다' (inquiry) supports. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as data scope or limitations.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks detail. It is front-loaded with the action, but the brevity limits its informativeness. A slightly more elaborate description could improve clarity without losing conciseness.

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?

Despite the existence of an output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description is very minimal. Given the large set of similar event_* sibling tools, more context about what a 'business disposal decision' entails or how results are structured would aid selection. The current description is incomplete for the complexity.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions (e.g., '고유번호 (8자리)' for corp_code). The description does not add further meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score applies.

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 Korean description '영업양도 결정을 조회합니다' communicates that the tool is for inquiring about business transfer decisions. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like event_business_acquisition or event_asset_transfer, relying on the name for differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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