get_exchangeable_bond

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. It mentions 'analysis', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it's a calculation, retrieval, or report generation. It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, output format, or any side effects, leaving significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, concise sentence in Korean that efficiently states the tool's focus. It's front-loaded with key terms like '교환사채' (exchangeable bond) and '분석' (analysis), with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly stating the action (e.g., 'Retrieve analysis of...').

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?

Given the complexity implied by 'analysis' and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the analysis entails, the format of results, or any limitations. For a tool with three required parameters and no structured output information, more context is needed to understand its full scope and usage.

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 clear parameter descriptions in Korean (e.g., '고유번호 (8자리)' for corp_code). The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how the date range affects the analysis. Since the schema is well-documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 '교환사채 발행을 통한 특정 기업 지분 연결성과 주가 변동성 리스크 분석' (Analysis of equity linkage and stock price volatility risk through exchangeable bond issuance) states the tool's purpose in Korean, but it's somewhat vague. It mentions 'exchangeable bond issuance' and 'analysis' but doesn't specify the exact action (e.g., retrieve, calculate, list). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on exchangeable bonds, but the verb is implicit rather than explicit.

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 prerequisites, context, or compare with sibling tools like 'get_convertible_bond' or 'get_bond_with_warrant', which might handle similar financial instruments. Users must infer usage from the title and parameters alone.

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