get_periodic_report

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

No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions return fields vary by type but lacks detail on authentication, rate limits, error handling, or side effects. The tool is a read operation, but this is implied rather than 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?

Description is structured with a clear purpose sentence, parameter explanations, and a return note. It is somewhat lengthy due to the report type list, but this list is essential. Front-loaded with main purpose. Could be slightly more concise, but functional.

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 tool's complexity (4 params, 2 required, 27 report types) and no annotations, the description covers all parameters adequately with examples and enum values. It notes variable return fields, which is important. Lacks detailed output schema (though output schema exists, not described), and error scenarios are not addressed.

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 description provides extensive meanings: corp_code example ('00126380'), bsns_year format, reprt_code values and mapping, and a full list of 27 report_type options with Korean explanations. This goes far beyond the minimal 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 explicitly states the tool retrieves key information from DART periodic reports by type, using the verb '조회' (retrieve) and specifying the resource. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on periodic reports with 27 specific types, which is clear and specific.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It lists 27 report types but does not explain selection criteria or when other sibling tools should be preferred. No 'when not to use' or alternative recommendations.

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