get_debt_securities_issued

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions analysis of funding structure and debt risk, it doesn't clarify whether this tool retrieves raw data, performs calculations, or generates reports. There's no information about permissions needed, rate limits, or what format the output takes.

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 communicates the core purpose. There's no wasted language, though it could be more specific about the tool's action. The structure is straightforward with no unnecessary elaboration.

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 insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool actually returns (raw data? analysis results?), how the analysis is performed, or what format the output takes. The description leaves too many open questions about the tool's behavior and output.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's 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.

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's purpose is to analyze funding structure and debt risk through debt securities issuance performance, which provides some context about what it does. However, it's somewhat vague about the specific action (retrieve? calculate? analyze?) and doesn't clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like get_corporate_bond_outstanding or get_debt, which also relate to debt instruments.

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 many sibling tools related to debt, bonds, and corporate information, there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it should be selected over similar tools like get_corporate_bond_outstanding or get_debt.

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