get_commercial_paper

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

Without annotations, the description must communicate behavioral traits. It indicates a safe read operation but does not disclose any further details like authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens if no data is found. The parameter format hints add some transparency, but overall the description is minimal for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 concise and well-structured. It starts with a clear one-line purpose, then uses a bullet-like list for parameters with format explanations. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 simple read operation with three well-explained parameters, the description is largely complete. It lacks output schema details and error handling information, but given the low complexity and the presence of similar sibling tools providing context, it is sufficiently informative for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage, leaving the description to fully explain parameters. The description provides explicit formats: corp_code as 8-digit DART code, bsns_year as YYYY, reprt_code with enumerated report types and examples. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema titles, making the parameters self-documenting.

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 clearly states the tool queries the outstanding balance of commercial paper securities (기업어음증권 미상환 잔액). The verb '조회합니다' indicates a read operation. This distinct resource (commercial paper) differentiates it from sibling tools like get_corp_bond_outstanding or get_debt_securities_outstanding.

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 instead of related siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions. The parameter descriptions offer format constraints but do not help an agent decide between this and other debt-related tools.

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