report_public_offering_fund_usage

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to reiterate these. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond stating it is a query. Given that annotations adequately cover the safety profile, the description provides minimal additional value.

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 that effectively conveys the tool's purpose. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded. While it could potentially include a bit more context without being verbose, it is efficient and free of unnecessary information.

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 an output schema and the parameter schema is fully described, the description is adequate for a simple query tool. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema exists. However, for a tool among many similar financial report tools, slightly more context about the output might be beneficial, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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%, with each parameter having a brief description (e.g., '고유번호 (8자리)' for corp_code). The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 as per the rule for high coverage.

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 explicitly states it inquires about public offering fund usage status ('공모자금 사용 현황을 조회합니다'). The tool name also clearly indicates its function. Among sibling tools, it is distinguished from 'report_private_placement_fund_usage' which handles private placement. This provides a specific verb and resource that differentiates it effectively.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites. While the name implies it is for public offering fund usage, and a sibling exists for private placement, no usage context or exclusions are given. The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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