get_stock_related_bond_acquisition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions '리스크 분석' (risk analysis), it doesn't clarify whether this tool performs analysis or simply retrieves data for analysis elsewhere. There's no information about permissions, rate limits, response format, or whether this is a read-only operation versus something that triggers analysis.

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 Korean phrase that's reasonably concise, but it's conceptually dense rather than operationally clear. While not verbose, it fails to efficiently communicate the tool's function. The structure doesn't front-load the most critical information about what the tool actually does.

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 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what kind of data is returned, what format it's in, or how the 'risk analysis' mentioned relates to the retrieved data. The description leaves too many operational questions unanswered for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 all three parameters clearly documented in the schema itself (corp_code, bgn_de, end_de). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already 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 '주식 관련 사채권 양수를 통한 지분 확보 전략 및 내부거래 리스크 분석' (Stock-related bond acquisition strategy for equity securing and internal transaction risk analysis) is vague about what the tool actually does. It describes a strategic analysis concept rather than stating a clear action like 'retrieve' or 'analyze' specific data. The name 'get_stock_related_bond_acquisition' suggests a data retrieval function, but the description doesn't clearly confirm this operational purpose.

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 80+ sibling tools including related ones like 'get_stock_related_bond_transfer' and 'get_other_corp_stock_acquisition,' there's no indication of what distinguishes this tool's functionality or appropriate use cases. The description fails to help an agent choose between similar-looking tools.

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