get_securities_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns '증권신고서 주요정보' but does not specify the format, pagination, error handling, or any side effects. While it implies a read operation, it lacks detail on permissions or rate limits.

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 structured with an intro sentence, parameter list, and return statement, but it is somewhat verbose. The parameter descriptions could be integrated more concisely, and the return statement is too vague to be helpful.

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 (indicated by context signals), the description's vague return statement is partially excused. However, it still fails to convey whether results are paginated, sorted, or contain any notable fields beyond 'key information.' The 0% schema coverage and lack of annotations increase the burden on the description, which it does not fully meet.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: corp_code (DART 8-digit number), report_type (with literal list of valid types), bgn_de/end_de (date range format YYYYMMDD). This adds critical meaning beyond the schema's minimal 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 verb '조회' (query) and the resource '증권신고서 주요정보' (securities report key information), with a parameter for type. It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like get_periodic_report or get_financial_statements by focusing on securities reports with a specific report type enum.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, nor does it reference sibling tools or provide contextual cues for tool selection.

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