get_major_shareholder_status

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well by naming the external API, the endpoint, and the returned fields (shareholder name, relationship, ownership at start/end). It does not mention authentication or rate-limit prerequisites, but for a read-only status fetch the disclosed behavior is solid.

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 API source, then flows into a cleanly formatted Args section. Every sentence earns its place, and the Korean terminology is included without making the text bloated.

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?

The description covers all four parameters, their allowed values, and the nature of the returned data, while the presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values in prose. It falls short only by not mentioning API-key/connection prerequisites or explicitly contrasting with sibling shareholder tools.

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 the description fully compensates by defining corp_code with a concrete example, explaining the four-digit year format, and enumerating all valid report_type values with their Korean meanings. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare input 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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('major/largest-shareholder ownership status'), and a scope ('across years'). It also identifies the Open DART endpoint and the exact data elements returned, making it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like get_major_shareholder_changes and get_minority_shareholder_status.

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 clear context for what the tool fetches and supports report-type selection, but it never explicitly names alternatives or states when to prefer this tool over the closely related shareholder tools. The usage guidance is therefore implied rather than explicitly differentiated.

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