get_financial_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral details beyond annotations: absent or ambiguous accounts are returned as null, and quarterly figures are returned separately from cumulative figures. Since there is no output schema, this return-shape disclosure is valuable, though it omits pagination/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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the account scope, then the null convention, then the quarterly/cumulative return split. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so for the null convention and the quarterly/cumulative split. It remains silent on how fs_div/report interact with the returned figures and on the meaning of ambiguity, leaving a modest gap for a read-only lookup tool.

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 75% and both enums (fs_div, report) are documented in the schema itself, so the schema does most of the work. The description's mention of separate 분기/누적 amounts loosely maps to the report parameter but adds no format, default, or substitution guidance beyond what the schema already states (e.g., '자동 대체 없음').

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?

States a specific verb (조회) and resource (표준계정: 매출·영업이익·순이익·자산·부채·자본), making the scope of the summary unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_full_financial_statements or compare_financials, so an agent must infer when the summarized set is preferred over the full statements.

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 gives no when-to-use instruction and never names an alternative, despite four closely related siblings (notably get_full_financial_statements). Nothing tells the agent when the standard-account summary is the right call versus pulling complete statements.

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