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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, but the description adds genuinely important data-quality context: past dates are actual payments (actual=1) while future dates are projected calculated values that do not account for holidays. That caveat materially changes how an agent should present results; only return formatting/pagination is left unaddressed.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; purpose comes first, then the actual-vs-projected caveat, then the unit definition. The 'per_10k = ...' clause appears without being framed as a response field, which costs a little clarity but not much length.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description helpfully explains the key per_10k unit and the actual/projected distinction, which is more than most definitions offer. However, for a 5-parameter tool it leaves min_grade and the meaning/filtering behavior of bonds and stock entirely unexplained, so an agent cannot confidently use the optional filters.

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 only 40%, so the description should compensate, but it says nothing about from/to formatting, the bonds ISIN list, the stock code/name parameter, or min_grade. The 'per_10k' explanation actually describes a response field, not an input parameter, so it does not close the parameter gap (min_grade is undocumented in both schema and description).

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 resource and verb: a bond interest and principal payment schedule within a date range ('기간 내 채권 이자·원금 지급 일정'). An agent can tell it apart from generic siblings like calendar or bond without opening the schema, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with bond/bonds/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 only usage signal is the implicit 'within the period' framing from the required from/to dates. There is no statement of when to prefer this over sibling tools such as bonds, bond, or calendar, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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