get_conditional_capital_issuance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only implies a read operation ('조회합니다') but does not explicitly state it is read-only, nor does it mention any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or response format. The transparency is minimal.

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, consisting of a single sentence followed by a parameter list. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, mixing Korean and English without clear separation may slightly hinder clarity for a non-Korean agent, but overall it is efficient.

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 of the tool (3 parameters, no output schema, many siblings), the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the returned data looks like, which is critical since there is no output schema. The agent cannot infer the structure of the response.

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 description adds meaning to each parameter: corp_code is 'DART 기업 고유번호 (8자리)', bgn_de is '시작일 (YYYYMMDD)', end_de is '종료일 (YYYYMMDD)'. However, it does not clarify which parameters are required (only corp_code is required per schema) and does not mention optionality. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates but misses some critical details.

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 retrieves '상각형 조건부자본증권' (conditional capital issuance) decision information from a report. The verb '조회합니다' indicates a retrieval operation. It is specific among many similar sibling tools that deal with different financial instruments.

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 many sibling tools for various financial reports, the agent is not told when to choose this one over others like get_convertible_bond or get_hybrid_bond.

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