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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing Korean-name/nickname resolution and the name→ticker direction of the operation. It stays silent on ambiguous or partial matches (single vs. multiple results), which is the main remaining behavioral unknown.

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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing: the first defines what is searchable and demonstrates the non-obvious Korean alias behavior; the second gives the usage trigger. Nothing is redundant and the core capability is front-loaded.

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?

With full annotation coverage, 100% schema description coverage and an output schema, the description need not explain returns or safety. It is complete for selecting and calling the tool; only disambiguation behavior on fuzzy or multi-match queries is left implicit.

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 `query` and `lang` are already documented with examples and enum meaning. The description restates the query semantics (ticker, company name, Korean names) but adds no new detail, and says nothing about the `lang` parameter. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ("Find US-listed stocks") with a clear scope constraint (US-listed) and concrete resolution examples (구글 → GOOGL). It does not reference the sibling tools, but the purpose is distinct enough from the earnings-oriented siblings that confusion is unlikely.

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?

"Use when the user names a company and you need its ticker" gives a clear triggering condition tied to user intent. There is no explicit when-not guidance or mention of alternatives (e.g. what to do if the user already has a ticker, or if resolution fails).

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