generate_financial_dashboard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'generates' implying a creation or write operation, but doesn't specify if this is a read-only analysis, requires authentication, has side effects, or details output format. For a tool with three parameters and no annotations, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence in Korean that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool description, though it could be more structured if it included usage notes or differentiation from siblings.

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 three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the dashboard output entails (e.g., format, content), behavioral traits, or how it differs from siblings. For a tool named 'generate_financial_dashboard', this leaves critical gaps in understanding its function and use.

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%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters (corp_codes, report_code, year). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles 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 states the tool 'generates a comprehensive financial analysis dashboard', which provides a clear verb ('generate') and resource ('dashboard'). However, it's vague about what makes it 'comprehensive' and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_html_dashboard' or 'generate_financial_chart', leaving ambiguity about its specific role.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for use, or exclusions, and fails to reference sibling tools like 'analyze_financial_data' or 'generate_comparison_table' that might serve similar purposes, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.

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