get_company_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('가져옵니다' - get/fetch) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the list is in (e.g., IDs, names, metadata). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded if it included key behavioral details, but given the simplicity, it's well-structured.

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's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal but incomplete. It states what the tool does but lacks context on behavior, output format, or usage scenarios. For even a simple tool, more detail on what '분석 가능한' means or the return structure would improve completeness, as the agent must guess these aspects.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly doesn't mention any. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's no parameter information to compensate for or clarify.

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 '분석 가능한 회사 목록을 가져옵니다' (Get a list of companies that can be analyzed) states a clear verb ('가져옵니다' - get/fetch) and resource ('회사 목록' - company list), but lacks specificity about scope or format. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on listing companies rather than analyzing or visualizing data, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar list operations.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies this fetches companies for analysis, but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., authentication needed), when to use this versus other data-fetching tools, or what makes a company '분석 가능한' (analyzable). Without context, the agent 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.