get_multi_company_financials

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 discloses that the tool returns key accounts and compares by company/statement type, but does not mention authentication, rate limits, or data volume limits. It provides basic behavioral info but lacks depth.

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 (general, parameters, returns), written in Korean, and is concise with no extraneous content. It is front-loaded with the main 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 that an output schema exists (context: has_output_schema=true), the description need not detail return values. It covers the tool's purpose and parameters completely, making it self-sufficient for an agent.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully explains each parameter: corp_code (comma-separated DART numbers), bsns_year (business year example), and reprt_code (report type with default and codes). This adds significant meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 key financial statements for multiple companies from DART and lists specific items (매출액, 영업이익 등). The verb '조회' and resource '주요계정 재무제표' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like get_financial_statements (single company) and get_multi_company_indicators.

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 explains when to use: to compare key financial items of multiple companies. It implicitly distinguishes from single-company tools, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like get_financial_statements or get_multi_company_indicators.

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