report_private_placement_fund_usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., auth requirements, result format), but it does not contradict annotations. For a read tool with good annotations, this is acceptable but not enhanced.

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 conveys the tool's purpose. There is no unnecessary detail or redundancy, fitting the principle that every word should earn its place.

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 that the tool has three required parameters, a clear purpose, an existing output schema, and annotations, the description is largely adequate. A minor gap is the lack of explanation about the relationship to the sibling tool, but overall it provides sufficient context for a focused query operation.

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%, so the input schema already clearly defines the three parameters with Korean descriptions for each (corp_code, bsns_year, reprt_code). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 states '조회합니다' (inquire), indicating it is a read operation. It specifies '사모자금 사용 현황' (private equity fund usage), which clarifies the resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'report_public_offering_fund_usage', which could cause ambiguity. The name helps but the description could be more explicit.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tool 'report_public_offering_fund_usage' exists for similar purposes but for public offerings, yet the description does not mention this distinction or provide usage context. The agent receives no help in decision-making.

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