get_financial_statements_full

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns detailed items but does not mention any behavioral traits such as authentication, rate limits, data freshness, or error behavior. The description is safe but minimally transparent about side effects or constraints.

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 sections for purpose, parameter details, and return overview. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. It is concise yet comprehensive, fitting the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, all parameters, and return contents. With an output schema present, it need not detail return format. However, it misses potential context like pagination or error handling, which slightly reduces completeness for agents.

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 adds rich semantics: corp_code as 8-digit DART code, bsns_year format, reprt_code mappings to report types, and fs_div options with defaults. This fully compensates for the lack of schema comments, providing clear guidance on parameter meaning and valid values.

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 the tool retrieves full financial statements (BS, IS, CIS, CF, SCE) from DART for a single company. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_financial_statements and get_financial_indicators by explicitly listing all five statement types and emphasizing '전체' (full).

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 detailed parameter usage with examples, formats, and default values, making it clear when to invoke. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use compared to sibling tools like get_financial_statements, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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