event_tangible_asset_acquisition

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

Annotations readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true already indicate the tool is a read-only query. The description ('조회합니다.') aligns with this. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, result structure) are disclosed. Since annotations cover the basics, a 3 is fair.

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 sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose. No extraneous information. While very brief, it is appropriately concise 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 tool's simplicity (3 parameters, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but omits details about output content or usage scenarios. It could be improved, so a 3 is reasonable.

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%: each parameter (corp_code, bgn_de, end_de) has a clear description in the input schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter context. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 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 description '유형자산 양수 결정을 조회합니다.' clearly indicates the tool queries tangible asset acquisition decisions. The name matches this purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like event_tangible_asset_disposal, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 are no contextual hints about prerequisites, exclusions, or related tools. This lack of usage direction earns a 2.

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