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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: it discloses the upstream data source (FSC public data) and enumerates the returned sections, which effectively serves as a return contract given there is no output schema. It omits any note on rate limits or how much history is returned.

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?

One front-loaded sentence led by the resource and scope, then a compact enumeration of returned data, ending with a provenance note. Nothing is repeated and every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to discover by calling.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies exactly the missing piece: what the response contains. An agent can decide to call this and know what to expect without further inference.

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 100%, with both `bond` (ISIN or name) and `price_days` (default 60, max 1000) already documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'daily quotes' loosely maps to `price_days` but adds no format or interpretation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource (single bond issue detail) and then enumerates the exact payload: issuance terms (seniority, options, guarantee, coupon, payment cycle), agency ratings, daily quotes (price, yield, traded face value), principal/interest schedules, and same-issuer bonds. This clearly separates it from the list-oriented sibling `bonds` and the date-oriented `bond_calendar`.

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 '한 종목' (one issue) framing implies this is the detail lookup after finding a bond elsewhere, but the description never names an alternative tool or states when not to use it. Usage is inferable from scope rather than explicitly guided.

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