event_stock_related_bond_disposal

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that it's an inquiry, which aligns with readOnlyHint, but no further behavioral traits (e.g., auth needs, rate limits) 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 a single sentence of 5 words in Korean. It is concise but minimal. While it states the purpose, it lacks structure or contextual elaboration.

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 existence of an output schema, return values are not needed. However, the description does not explain domain-specific terms like 'stock-related bond disposal' or how to use date range parameters. It is adequate for a straightforward query but could be more complete.

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 parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter details. It does not, however, add any additional context 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 uses a specific verb 'inquires' and identifies the resource 'stock-related bond transfer decision', which clearly indicates a query operation. However, it uses 'transfer' while the tool name says 'disposal', causing slight ambiguity, and it does not distinguish from the sibling tool for acquisition.

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. The sibling list includes event_stock_related_bond_acquisition, but the description does not clarify when to use disposal vs acquisition.

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