get_debt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the analytical purpose but doesn't describe what the tool actually returns (e.g., risk metrics, structured data, analysis report), whether it performs calculations or just retrieves data, or any limitations like data freshness or coverage. For a tool with three required parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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, efficient sentence in Korean that directly states the tool's purpose. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates, though it could be more front-loaded with the core function. There's no wasted verbiage, but it could benefit from slightly more structure given the analytical nature of the tool.

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 three required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema that performs what appears to be financial risk analysis, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what kind of analysis is performed, what format the results take, or any limitations or assumptions in the risk calculation. The combination of analytical purpose and missing output information creates significant uncertainty about what the tool actually delivers.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear documentation for all three parameters (corp_code, bgn_de, end_de). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation without adding extra value. The description implies these parameters are used for risk analysis but doesn't elaborate on how they 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: analyzing debt risk and refinancing risk through debt securities issuance terms and structure. It specifies the resource (debt securities) and the analytical outcome (risk analysis), though it doesn't explicitly mention the verb 'retrieve' or 'get' which is implied by the tool name. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_debt_securities_issued' by focusing on risk analysis rather than just issuance data.

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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like 'get_debt_securities_issued' or 'get_corporate_bond_outstanding'. The user must infer usage from the description alone without explicit contextual direction.

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