get_executive_stock_report

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation by stating '조회' (retrieve), but does not explicitly confirm safety, idempotency, or any side effects. No mention of authentication requirements, rate limits, or data freshness. The detailed return list adds some transparency but behavioral context is minimal.

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 well-organized with parameters and returns sections, and immediately states the purpose. The return list is detailed but arguably redundant given the output schema exists. Still, it remains reasonably concise for the complexity, and every section serves a 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?

Given the simple input (one parameter, no nesting) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: parameter format and return content. It lacks usage guidance, but for a straightforward retrieval tool with good output schema, the description is nearly 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 coverage is 0%, but the description provides a clear explanation of the single parameter (corp_code), including format (8-digit DART number) and an example. This adds necessary semantic meaning beyond the schema's generic 'string' type. The description compensates well for the lack of schema documentation.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves executive and major shareholder stock ownership reports from DART, specifying the exact resource and report type. It lists detailed return fields, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. The name and description together effectively distinguish it from sibling tools like get_major_shareholders_report.

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 does not mention scenarios or constraints, nor does it contrast with sibling tools such as get_major_shareholders_report or get_periodic_report. The agent must infer usage from the name and context.

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