get_convertible_bond

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description mentions 'analysis' but doesn't clarify whether this is a read-only data retrieval tool (as the 'get_' prefix suggests) or a computational analysis tool. It doesn't disclose what format the results come in, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or any other behavioral characteristics. The analytical focus in the description creates ambiguity about the tool's actual 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?

The description is a single, dense sentence in Korean that packs multiple concepts (convertible bond issuance decisions, financing strategy, shareholder value dilution risk analysis). While concise in length, it's conceptually overloaded and lacks clear structure. The front-loading is adequate but the content is too abstract for a tool description.

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 clarify what the tool actually does (retrieve vs analyze), what format results come in, or how it differs from similar tools. The analytical focus creates more questions than answers about the tool's functionality and expected outputs.

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%, with all three parameters (corp_code, bgn_de, end_de) well-described in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description, which applies here.

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 '전환사채 발행 결정을 통한 자금조달 전략 및 주주가치 희석 리스크 분석' (Analysis of financing strategy through convertible bond issuance decisions and shareholder value dilution risk) describes the tool's analytical purpose but doesn't specify the action the tool performs. It's unclear whether this tool retrieves, calculates, or analyzes data about convertible bonds. The name 'get_convertible_bond' suggests a retrieval function, but the description focuses on analysis rather than the tool's actual operation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 75+ sibling tools on the server including related tools like get_bond_with_warrant, get_exchangeable_bond, and get_corporate_bond_outstanding, there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it should be selected over similar bond-related tools. No context about appropriate use cases is provided.

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