get_sri_bond_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only conveys a read operation through the verb '조회'. It does not mention output format, date range limitations, or data scope, leaving the agent without critical operational details.

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, consisting of a single purpose sentence and an args list with no redundant content. It front-loades the primary action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient: it states the purpose and parameter meaning. However, it lacks usage context and behavioral notes, which prevents full completeness for an agent navigating many sibling tools.

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 schema has 0% coverage, but the description compensates by explaining basDd as '기준일자' (base date) and specifying the format YYYYMMDD. This adds meaningful semantic context beyond the raw string type, fully clarifying the single required parameter.

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 states the tool retrieves SRI bond information using the specific verb '조회합니다' (retrieves) and the resource 'SRI 채권 정보', which distinguishes it from sibling bond tools like get_general_bond_daily. However, it does not specify the exact nature of the information (e.g., price, yield, holdings), leaving some ambiguity.

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 such as get_general_bond_daily or get_esg_etp_info. It lacks any context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, which is essential for an agent deciding among many sibling tools.

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