get_stock_related_bond_transfer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'analysis' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, what data format is returned, potential rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with three parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it 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, dense sentence that packs multiple concepts ('funding liquidity,' 'equity change risks'), making it somewhat front-loaded but not optimally clear. It could be more structured to separate purpose from context, but it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 tool returns, how the analysis is performed, or any behavioral constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter input.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'corp_code' as an 8-digit unique number, date formats). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 without compensating for any gaps.

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 'funding liquidity and equity change risks through stock-related bond transfers,' which provides a general purpose but lacks specificity. It doesn't clearly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_bond_with_warrant' or 'get_convertible_bond,' and the verb 'analyze' is vague compared to more precise actions like 'retrieve' or 'calculate.'

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and with many sibling tools related to bonds and stocks, there's no indication of how this differs from tools like 'get_stock_related_bond_acquisition' or 'get_bond_with_warrant.'

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