get_minority_shareholder_status

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the upstream Open DART endpoint and the specific metrics returned, which adds real context. It stops short of covering auth prerequisites, rate limits, error behavior, or data availability constraints, all of which would be useful without annotations.

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 a clear one-line purpose, then moves directly into a compact Args block. There is no filler, and every section earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so explaining the return structure is unnecessary. The description covers the endpoint, all parameters, and the reported data metrics sufficiently for correct invocation. The remaining gap is the lack of explicit sibling routing and behavioral caveats, which are mostly scored elsewhere.

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 explains corp_code format with an example, specifies four-digit years with examples, and enumerates every report_type value with Korean labels and the meaning of 'all'. This is exactly the information an agent needs to fill the parameters correctly.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('minority/small shareholder status'), and a time dimension ('across years'), reinforced by the Korean term. This makes it immediately distinguishable from the sibling get_major_shareholder_status even without an explicit comparison.

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 implied by the tool name and first sentence: fetch minority shareholder status data. However, the description never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over get_major_shareholder_status or other shareholder-related siblings, and it offers no alternatives or exclusions.

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