get_financial_statements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does explain the return structure (comparative, includes CFS/OFS) but does not disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or potential side effects. The explanation of output format adds some transparency but is incomplete.

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-structured with clear sections (Parameters, Returns). Every sentence is informative and earns its place. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and uses bullet points for readability. No fluff.

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 three parameters and the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return value comprehensively. It differentiates from closely related sibling tools (e.g., multi-company version). The description is complete for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description provides valuable details for all three parameters: corp_code format (8 digits, example), bsns_year format (example), and reprt_code mapping to report types with default. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 it retrieves major account financial statements for a single company from DART. It lists specific financial items (매출액, 영업이익 등) and mentions comparative format, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_financial_statements_full (probably more comprehensive) and get_multi_company_financials (multiple companies).

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 specifies '단일회사' (single company) and explains parameters, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives. However, the mention of single company and the specific parameter details give implicit guidance. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or clear alternatives.

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