get_conditional_capital_securities_outstanding

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions 'analysis' but doesn't specify if this is a read-only query, what data sources it uses, potential limitations, or output format. For a tool with 3 required parameters and no output schema, this is insufficient disclosure.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Korean that directly states the tool's purpose. While concise, it could be more front-loaded with key information, but there's no wasted verbiage.

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 tool with 3 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'analysis' entails, what results to expect, or how the output relates to the input parameters. The agent would struggle to understand what this tool actually returns.

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 100%, providing clear documentation for all 3 parameters (corp_code, bsns_year, reprt_code). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline but doesn't enhance understanding of how parameters affect the analysis.

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 states the tool analyzes capital loss and amortization risk through outstanding amortizing conditional capital securities, which is a specific purpose. However, it doesn't clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_hybrid_securities_outstanding' or 'get_corporate_bond_outstanding', leaving ambiguity about what makes this tool unique.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context for analysis, or how it differs from other securities-related tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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