get_short_term_bond

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

Without annotations, the description only implies a read-only operation ('조회합니다'). It lacks disclosure of behavioral traits like rate limits, data freshness, or error handling. The description does not contradict annotations since none exist.

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, with a one-line purpose followed by a structured Args list. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easy to scan.

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 adequately covers purpose and parameters, but lacks information about the return value format or behavior when no data is found. Given no output schema and 3 parameters, it provides minimal but sufficient context for a simple inquiry tool.

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 Args section provides detailed meaning for each parameter beyond the schema: corp_code format (8-digit DART), bsns_year format (YYYY with example), and reprt_code with explicit values. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates.

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's function: '단기사채 미상환 잔액을 조회합니다' (inquiries the outstanding balance of short-term bonds), which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_corp_bond_outstanding' by explicitly mentioning short-term bonds.

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_corp_bond_outstanding or get_debt_securities_outstanding. The description does not mention prerequisites or usage context.

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