get_bond_index_daily

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it retrieves daily data, without revealing any behavioral traits such as date range constraints, data source, update frequency, or whether it returns a single day's record. The description adds little beyond what the tool name implies.

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 extremely concise—one sentence stating the purpose and a short Args block for the sole parameter. Every element earns its place, and the structure is clear and front-loaded. No filler or repetition.

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 tool is simple (one parameter) and an output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, the context is incomplete. It does not mention any special behaviors, limitations, or relationships to sibling tools, leaving gaps for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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 input schema has zero description coverage (only 'Basdd' as title), but the description compensates by providing an Args block that explains 'basDd' as the base date (기준일자) and specifies the YYYYMMDD format. This gives the agent meaningful guidance on how to construct the parameter value, which the schema alone would not convey.

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 daily bond index price information ('채권지수 일별시세정보를 조회합니다'), which is a specific verb+resource. It does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools such as get_krx_index_daily or get_general_bond_daily, but the name alone conveys the scope (bond index vs. other asset types).

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states the action and the parameter, with no mention of use cases, exclusions, or preferred scenarios. The sibling list includes several similar daily-price tools, but no comparison or selection criteria are offered.

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