event_bond_with_warrant

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's verb '조회합니다' (inquire) is consistent but adds no new behavioral insight. The description does not disclose additional traits like rate limits, default date handling, or result pagination, but given the annotations, this is acceptable.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. No word is wasted, though it could be slightly expanded to include usage context without harming conciseness.

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 presence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks usage guidelines to help the agent decide when to invoke this tool among many similar event tools. The completeness is adequate for a simple query but not fully robust.

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?

All three parameters are described in the input schema with 100% coverage. The description itself adds no additional meaning or context about parameters (e.g., how date filters work), so it provides no value beyond the schema.

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 action ('조회합니다' = inquire) and the specific resource ('신주인수권부사채 발행 결정' = decision to issue bonds with warrants). This precise resource name differentiates it from numerous sibling tools that deal with other financial events, achieving high distinctiveness.

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. Given the large number of sibling tools for similar events (e.g., event_convertible_bond, event_bonus_issue), the description would benefit from indicating the appropriate context or conditions for use.

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