get_full_financial_statement

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose the external Open DART endpoint and that it returns every line item in the balance sheet, income statement, and other statements. It does not mention API-key requirements, network-call implications, error behavior, or potentially large payloads, so transparency is adequate but incomplete.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then uses a clean Args section for parameter detail. No sentence is wasted; the length is justified by the absence of parameter documentation in the schema.

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, the description does not need to explain return structure, and its parameter coverage is complete. The only notable gap is the lack of any prerequisite/alternative guidance, such as requiring a valid DART API key or when to choose get_financial_statements instead.

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%, and the description fully compensates: it documents all four arguments, including corp_code format and example, year format, report_type choices with Korean labels, and fs_div choices with the default. This is exactly the semantic info an agent needs beyond the raw 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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Get the complete financial statement (every line item) for one period.' It further clarifies the scope (single business year/report type) and names the underlying endpoint, making it easy to distinguish from the sibling get_financial_statements.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternative sibling (notably get_financial_statements) is named. The 'every line item' phrasing hints at a full-detail use case, but the agent is left to infer the boundary between this tool and related financial-statement tools.

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