resolve_company_info

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or side effects. The description is too minimal to inform an agent about safe or expected behavior beyond the stated transformation.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core functionality with no extraneous words. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a high-level summary but lacks details about the return format (single object or list), error conditions, or edge cases. It is minimally adequate for a straightforward lookup.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'name_or_code'. The description compensates by indicating the parameter can be a company name or code, which adds some meaning beyond the schema. However, it lacks details like format or constraints.

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 '회사명/고유번호 → 시장·업종 메타.' clearly identifies a specific verb ('resolve') and resource (company info to market/industry meta). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'build_company_meta' (which implies creation or update) and 'list_industries' (which lists all industries).

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, no prerequisites, and no exclusion criteria. Usage is only implied by the purpose; explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use is missing.

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