report_individual_compensation

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

While annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, the description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., data scope, pagination, rate limits). It merely states 'queries', which is already implied by annotations.

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 extremely concise (one short sentence) but at the cost of omitting critical distinguishing information. It is underspecified rather than efficiently informative.

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 multiple sibling tools and three required parameters, the description lacks essential context to disambiguate usage. An output schema exists, but the description does not leverage it to explain what data is returned.

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 coverage is 100% with adequate parameter descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 '개인별 보수를 조회합니다.' is vague; it does not specify whose compensation (e.g., all individuals vs. directors). The presence of a similar sibling 'report_director_individual_compensation' suggests a distinction, but the description fails to clarify this, leading to potential confusion.

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 over alternatives like 'report_director_individual_compensation' or other compensation-related tools. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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