get_convertible_bond

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the function is a retrieval operation (read-only implied) but does not mention authorization needs, potential rate limits, or what happens if the corporation code is invalid or data is missing. No behavioral traits beyond the basic operation are disclosed.

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: one sentence stating the purpose, followed by a clean Args section listing parameters. No extraneous information. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the key action is front-loaded.

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?

The description provides the data source (주요사항보고서) and parameter details, which is adequate for a simple retrieval tool. However, without an output schema, the description should hint at the structure of returned data; it only says '주요 정보를 조회합니다' (retrieves main information), which is vague. No error handling or edge cases are mentioned.

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 includes an 'Args' section that explains each parameter: corp_code as an 8-digit DART company code, bgn_de and end_de as optional dates with format YYYYMMDD. This adds meaning beyond the input schema, which only lists types and titles. However, it does not elaborate on default behavior or range constraints.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves 'convertible bond issuance decision' information from a specific report (주요사항보고서). The verb '조회합니다' (retrieves) and resource '전환사채권 발행결정' are specific. Among siblings like get_bond_issuance or get_exchangeable_bond, the name and purpose differentiate it, though no explicit differentiation is mentioned.

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, such as get_bond_issuance or get_exchangeable_bond. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context hints for usage.

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