get_major_shareholder_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It names the underlying Open DART endpoint, explains that data covers start and end of each reporting period, and lists the specific shareholder fields returned. This is substantive transparency for a read-only status lookup, though it does not discuss API-key requirements or error behavior.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the data source and a clean Args block. Every sentence adds necessary information: the example corp_code is useful, the report_type list is explicit, and there is no filler.

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 four parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that presumably covers return values, the description is largely complete. It documents all parameters, the data source, the contents of the response semantics, and the supported reporting periods. It only lacks explicit guidance on choosing among sibling shareholder-related tools, but that is secondary to making a correct call.

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%, so the description must fully document parameters, and it does. It explains corp_code as an eight-digit Open DART code with a concrete example, defines start_year and end_year as four-digit business years, and enumerates all report_type values including Korean names and 'all' semantics.

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 tool gets major/largest-shareholder ownership status (최대주주 현황) across years and describes the data returned: each major shareholder's name, relationship to the company, and share ownership at reporting period boundaries. It is distinct enough from siblings like get_major_shareholder_changes and get_minority_shareholder_status, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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: call this when you need major-shareholder ownership status across years, with parameters for year range and report type. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related siblings such as get_major_shareholder_changes or get_minority_shareholder_status, nor does it mention exclusions.

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