report_other_corp_investments

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description does not add any behavioral context beyond what the annotations convey. It does not mention data freshness, pagination, or any limitations.

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 that directly states the tool's function. It is efficiently communicated with no wasted words, though it could be slightly enhanced with minimal structuring.

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 simple reporting nature, the description is adequate but lacks context about the output format or any restrictions. The presence of an output schema reduces the burden, but the description could still mention that it returns a list of investments.

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, with each parameter well-documented (e.g., '고유번호 (8자리)'). The tool description does not add additional semantic value beyond the schema, so a 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '타법인 출자 현황을 조회합니다' (Inquire about the status of investments in other corporations). It uses a specific verb (조회하다) and resource (타법인 출자 현황), distinguishing it from sibling tools like event_other_corp_stock_acquisition or report_hybrid_securities_balance.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name suggests it's for reporting on other corporate investments, there is no mention of when not to use it or which siblings cover related but different scenarios.

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