event_creditor_management_stop

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description states '조회합니다' (inquires), which aligns with read-only behavior. However, it adds no further behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as auth needs or data freshness.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb. It has zero wasted words and is appropriately sized for a simple query tool.

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 presence of an output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description provides sufficient context about the tool's purpose. It could mention the date range filtering implied by parameters, but the schema handles that. Overall, 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (corp_code, bgn_de, end_de). The description adds no additional meaning or constraints beyond the schema, achieving the baseline score.

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 inquires about the suspension of creditor management procedures ('채권자관리절차 중단을 조회합니다'). It uses a specific verb ('조회합니다' = inquire) and identifies a distinct resource ('중단' = suspension) that distinguishes it from siblings like event_creditor_management_start.

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 such as event_creditor_management_start or other event tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context for using the tool.

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