get_exchangeable_bond

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, rate limits, data freshness, or side effects. As a query tool, it likely is read-only, but this is not stated. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic function.

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 (two sentences plus an Args list) and front-loaded with the Korean summary. The structure is clear and easy to parse. No unnecessary information. Could be slightly more efficient by integrating parameter descriptions into the summary.

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 tool has 3 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and parameter formats but lacks use cases, return value description, or error handling. An agent might not know what to expect from the response or how to handle missing optional parameters.

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 provides parameter names and brief format hints (e.g., '8자리' for corp_code, 'YYYYMMDD' for dates), which adds value given 0% schema coverage. However, it does not explain the semantics or constraints (e.g., corp_code must be a valid DART code, date range bounds). The effort is adequate but minimal.

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 exchangeable bond issuance decision information, specifying the source (major matter report). It uses a specific verb '조회합니다' (queries) and resource '교환사채권 발행결정' (exchangeable bond issuance decision). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_convertible_bond or get_bond_issuance, which could cause confusion.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or preferred use cases. It implicitly expects the agent to know when exchangeable bond data is relevant, which is insufficient.

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