get_write_down_bond

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. However, it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what data sources it uses, potential rate limits, or the format of results. It fails to describe any operational behavior beyond the vague domain context, leaving critical usage information unknown.

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 is overly concise to the point of being underspecified. While it's brief, it lacks necessary structural elements like stating the tool's action or purpose clearly. It doesn't front-load key information, making it inefficient for quick understanding.

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 the tool name and description (involving financial analysis), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is highly incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how it processes inputs, or any behavioral context, making it inadequate for effective use by an AI agent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'corp_code' as an 8-digit unique identifier, date formats for 'bgn_de' and 'end_de'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 '상각형 조건부자본증권 발행을 통한 재무구조 보완 및 잠재적 상각 리스크 분석' which translates to 'Strengthening financial structure through issuance of write-down contingent capital securities and analyzing potential write-down risks.' This describes a domain/context rather than specifying what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieve, calculate, or analyze data). It doesn't clearly state the action the tool performs, making it vague about its actual function.

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 any prerequisites, context, or comparison to sibling tools like 'get_conditional_capital_securities_outstanding' or 'get_debt_securities_issued', which might be related. There's no indication of appropriate scenarios or exclusions for its use.

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