get_general_bond_daily

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (query) and the parameter, but does not describe output format, data source, limitations, or any side effects. Although the verb implies a read-only operation, the description is too sparse to offer meaningful transparency.

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, direct sentence followed by an argument list. Every element is essential and information-dense, with no redundant or filler content. It is perfectly front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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?

For a simple single-parameter data retrieval tool with an output schema present, the description is mostly complete. It covers the tool's purpose and the parameter meaning. The only minor gap is the lack of any contextual hints about data coverage or special conditions, but these are not critical for such a basic query 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 description explicitly explains the meaning of basDd (기준일자 = base date) and its format (YYYYMMDD). This adds substantial value beyond the input schema, which only shows the parameter name and type. It fully compensates for the schema's 0% description coverage.

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 trading information for the general bond market, using the specific verb '조회합니다' (query/retrieve) and a specific resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_kts_bond_daily and get_small_bond_daily by specifying '일반채권시장' (general bond market).

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 implies usage for general bond market daily data, but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives. It lacks any mention of exclusions or alternative tools, but the '일반' (general) qualifier provides a subtle hint that it is distinct from more specialized bond tools.

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