get_hybrid_securities_outstanding

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 'analysis' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what data sources are used, potential side effects, or output format. For a tool with three required parameters and no output schema, this lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap, though it doesn't contradict any annotations.

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 without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core function, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the action (e.g., 'retrieve and analyze'). Overall, it earns its place concisely.

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 risk assessment, three required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the analysis entails, how results are returned, or any behavioral traits, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's operation and output without additional context.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the input schema provides, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for corp_code, bsns_year, and reprt_code. Since the schema fully documents the parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract from the schema's completeness.

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-like debt risk and accounting classification risk through outstanding hybrid securities details,' which provides a general purpose but lacks specificity about the exact operation (e.g., retrieving, calculating, or reporting). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on hybrid securities, but the verb '분석' (analysis) is vague compared to clearer verbs like 'retrieve' or 'calculate' seen in other tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage for risk analysis related to hybrid securities, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or recommend other tools for different types of securities or data needs, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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