get_major_shareholder_changes

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does so well by stating that it queries the Open DART 최대주주 변동현황 endpoint and returns each change date, the new largest shareholder, and the reason. It does not mention API key requirements or rate limits, but the output schema covers return shape.

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 purpose, followed by a brief endpoint context and a well-organized Args breakdown. Every sentence earns its place; the length is justified by the need to document parameters without schema descriptions.

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?

For a read-only historical query tool, the description is nearly complete: it covers purpose, endpoint, all parameters, examples, and report types. The output schema handles return values. A minor gap is the absence of explicit preconditions such as API key requirements or year-range constraints, though sibling tools hint at the auth context.

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 Args section fully compensates. It documents corp_code format with a concrete example (Samsung Electronics 00126380), four-digit year expectations, and all report_type values including the default. This goes well beyond the bare 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names the exact resource: changes in the largest shareholder (최대주주 변동현황) across years. It also explains what the endpoint lists, which clearly differentiates it from sibling status-reporting tools like get_major_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 intended use is clear: fetch historical largest-holder change events by date, new shareholder, and reason. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'across years' and 'lists each date the largest shareholder changed' phrasing makes the appropriate context obvious.

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