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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the coverage limit of ~220 companies and the exact output composition including Korean translation with English original.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and output structure, followed by useful example utterances and a coverage caveat. Dense but every element serves selection or invocation; the examples are justified by the bilingual use case.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, yet the description still sketches the summary structure helpfully. Combined with the coverage limit and example queries, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only explicit sibling differentiation is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters (stock, lang) are fully documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description's mention of Korean translation with English original loosely reinforces the lang parameter but adds no syntax or format detail 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?

States a specific verb (summarize) and resource (latest earnings call/release) with clear scope: US companies, ~220 majors. The output shape (takeaway, positives, concerns, quotes) further distinguishes it from siblings like get_earnings_calendar and get_earnings_reactions.

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?

Provides concrete example queries in both Korean and English that show the intended invocation context, plus the availability constraint (~220 major companies). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, keeping it short of a 5.

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