generate_comparison_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('생성합니다' - generates) but doesn't describe what format the comparison table takes (CSV, HTML, visual?), whether it's a read-only operation, what permissions might be needed, or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 - a single Korean sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's zero waste or unnecessary verbiage. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates, though it could benefit from additional context.

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 tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the comparison table contains, what format it returns, how to interpret the results, or any prerequisites for use. For a financial comparison tool with multiple parameters, this minimal description leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (corp_codes, report_code, year). It doesn't explain relationships between parameters or provide examples of valid values. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: '기업별 재무 지표 비교표를 생성합니다' (Generates a comparison table of financial indicators by company). It specifies the action ('생성합니다' - generates) and resource ('비교표' - comparison table), but doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'generate_financial_chart' or 'generate_financial_dashboard' which might create similar outputs.

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 versus alternatives. There's no mention of when this comparison table generation is appropriate versus using 'analyze_financial_data', 'generate_financial_chart', or other sibling tools. The user must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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