get_major_event_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It describes a read-only query operation but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, side effects, or response structure. The return statement hints at varying fields but is not exhaustive.

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 a clear purpose sentence, parameter block, and return note. The event type list, though lengthy, is necessary for the tool's usage. A minor improvement would be to abbreviate or group related event types, but overall it is concise relative to the information required.

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?

Despite the presence of an output schema, the description does not leverage it to reduce verbosity. It covers all parameters and return variability, but lacks error handling, pagination, or example responses. However, for a read-only query tool with a rich event type list, it is adequately complete for agent use.

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, so the description compensates fully. It explains all four parameters: corp_code format, event_type with 36 explicit values and Korean translations, and date range parameters with examples. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema titles.

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 major event reports from DART by event type. It lists 36 event types and specifies the report type, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle other report categories like periodic or securities reports.

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 implies usage for querying major event reports by event type but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives. No references to sibling tools or exclusion criteria are provided, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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