financial_single_account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral details (e.g., pagination, account types covered, or error conditions). It does not contradict annotations, but adds minimal value beyond them.

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?

A single concise sentence. No wasted words, but the description is very brief and could be restructured to include key details like the typical accounts returned. Given brevity, it scores above average.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, the description lacks context about what constitutes 'major financial accounts' (e.g., cash, revenue) and assumes Korean financial reporting knowledge. For a tool with 4 parameters and a specific domain, more context would help.

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%, providing clear parameter descriptions for corp_code, bsns_year, reprt_code, and fs_div. The description adds only the context that it queries 'major' financial accounts, which does not materially enhance understanding of parameters. Baseline 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?

Description clearly states it queries major financial accounts of a single company. The verb '조회' (query) and resource '주요 재무 계정' are specific. However, 'major financial accounts' is vague without listing examples, and the name 'single_account' suggests one account but description says multiple. It differentiates from sibling tools like financial_full_statements but not explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like financial_full_statements or financial_multi_account. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The agent has to infer usage from the name and description.

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