get_multi_company_indicators

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits beyond input/output. It mentions only what the tool does and returns, but lacks information about side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or data freshness. The read-only nature is assumed but not stated.

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 summary, parameter list, and return description. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. While moderately long, it is efficient given the complexity of four parameters and the return value. Minor redundancy could be trimmed.

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 presence of an output schema and the tool's complexity, the description covers parameters and return info adequately. However, it lacks guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools (e.g., get_financial_indicators) and does not address error handling or prerequisites, which would enhance completeness.

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 detailed explanations for all 4 parameters, including examples (e.g., '00126380,00164779'), defaults, and enum mappings for reprt_code and idx_cl_code. This adds substantial 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 financial indicators for multiple companies ('여러 회사의 주요 재무지표를 한 번에 조회합니다'). This specific verb-resource combination and the 'multi_company' in the name distinguish it from single-company counterparts like get_financial_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 provides detailed parameter explanations but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., single-company tools) or include any when-not-to-use guidance. Usage context is implied by the term '여러 회사' but not formalized.

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