get_major_shareholders_report

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 describes the output fields (접수번호, 접수일자, 등) and implies a read-only query. However, it does not disclose potential behaviors like rate limits, data coverage, or whether results are historical only. The description is adequate but lacks some behavioral context.

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 concise, front-loading the main purpose, then detailing parameter and returns. Each sentence serves a purpose, with no fluff. Slightly verbose due to Korean formatting, but overall efficient.

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 single-parameter tool and the presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the parameter format and lists return fields. Missing details like error handling or data range, but these are not critical for this straightforward query tool.

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 one parameter (corp_code) with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning by stating it is an 8-character DART unique number with an example ('00126380'), which compensates for the schema's lack of detail. This provides valuable guidance beyond the 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 the tool retrieves major shareholders report information from DART, specifying it returns holder status and changes for those holding 5% or more. The verb '조회' (retrieve) and resource '대량보유 상황보고 정보' are specific, and the details distinguish it from sibling tools like get_major_event_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?

The description indicates the required parameter (corp_code) with format example, implying use for major shareholder reports. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when not to use it. Context is clear but lacks exclusion criteria.

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