event_paid_capital_increase

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the name. It doesn't mention pagination, return format, or any quirks. With annotations present, a 3 is appropriate.

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. It is front-loaded and efficient. However, it could include a bit more context without losing conciseness, so it's not a 5.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it is very minimal and does not mention any details about the data scope or typical usage. For a tool with many siblings, it is complete enough but lacks richness.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, and schema descriptions already explain corp_code as '8자리' and dates as YYYYMMDD. The tool description does not add any parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline without adding value.

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 it queries paid-in capital increase decisions (유상증자 결정을 조회). The verb and resource are specific, and the name distinguishes it from siblings like event_capital_reduction. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools, so it's not a 5.

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. Given the many sibling event tools, explicit context (e.g., 'Use for paid-in capital increase events only') is missing. There is no mention of prerequisites or related tools.

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