get_major_shareholder_changes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explains that the tool lists each date the largest shareholder changed, who the new shareholder was, and why, which goes beyond the minimal 'get changes' phrasing. It could add rate-limit, error, or API-key context, but the core behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 concise purpose sentence, a useful endpoint-context sentence, and a clearly formatted Args section. The Korean labels and example corp_code are informational rather than redundant, and no sentence is wasted.

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 sparse input schema and absent annotations, the description provides enough context for correct invocation: all parameter semantics, an example code, allowed report types, and expected output content. Since an output schema exists, the lack of explicit return-format documentation is acceptable.

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 compensates fully by documenting all four arguments: corp_code with a concrete example, start_year and end_year with format guidance, and report_type with every allowed value and its Korean equivalent. This adds substantial value over the bare parameter 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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Get changes in the largest shareholder ... across years.' It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling get_major_shareholder_status by emphasizing the historical change event list rather than a current status snapshot.

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?

Usage context is implied through the phrase 'across years' and the endpoint's purpose of listing shareholder change events, but the description never explicitly says when to choose this over the related get_major_shareholder_status or other shareholder tools. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative routing instructions.

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