get_short_term_bond_outstanding

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. The description mentions 'analysis' but doesn't specify whether this tool performs calculations, returns raw data, or generates reports. It doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, has side effects, requires authentication, or has rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, this is completely inadequate.

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 sentence that's reasonably concise, but it's not front-loaded with the most critical information. It focuses on the analysis purpose rather than the core function. While not verbose, it doesn't efficiently communicate what the tool does in a way that helps an AI agent understand its practical use.

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 that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more complete context about what this tool returns and how it behaves. The description mentions 'analysis' but doesn't specify the format or nature of the results. For a tool with 3 required parameters and no structured output documentation, the description is insufficient to help an agent understand what to expect from invoking this tool.

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 fully documents all three parameters (corp_code, bsns_year, reprt_code) with clear descriptions and examples. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info 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 '단기사채 미상환 내역을 통한 단기 자금조달 구조 및 유동성 리스크 분석' which translates to 'Analysis of short-term funding structure and liquidity risk through short-term bond outstanding details.' This is tautological - it essentially restates the tool name 'get_short_term_bond_outstanding' with added analysis context. While it mentions analysis, it doesn't clearly specify what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieves, calculates, or returns 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. Among the many sibling tools (e.g., get_commercial_paper_outstanding, get_corporate_bond_outstanding, get_debt), there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it should be selected. The description is purely about what the tool analyzes, not when to invoke it.

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