event_treasury_stock_acquisition

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description does not add any behavioral context beyond these annotations, but does not contradict them. It neither enriches nor harms transparency.

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 in Korean, front-loading the core purpose. While minimal, it wastes no words.

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?

The description omits any explanation of what a 'treasury stock acquisition decision' entails, or how the results are structured (though an output schema exists). Given the complexity of corporate event tools and the existence of many siblings, the description is too sparse for full contextual understanding.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 3 parameters (corp_code, bgn_de, end_de). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; however, with high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('조회합니다' - inquires) and resource ('자기주식 취득 결정' - treasury stock acquisition decision). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like event_treasury_stock_disposal or event_treasury_trust_contract, which are also inquiry-based tools.

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 (e.g., event_treasury_stock_disposal for disposal events). No context about prerequisites or typical usage scenarios is given.

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