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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint=false/idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the rule-based deterministic derivation, the 60-day refresh window, and the empty-list behavior when no signals exist. It still omits the shape of the returned evidence values and whether an empty result is distinguishable from an error.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the recency constraint and the empty case. Every sentence carries information, with only mild redundancy from the parenthetical examples.

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 one parameter, full schema coverage, and a safety-carrying annotation set, the description is nearly sufficient. However, without an output schema the description should say more about what the evidence numbers look like and how signals are ordered or capped, which it does not.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single symbol parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the 6-digit format, an example, and a fallback to search_stocks. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific resource (주의 신호) and explains how it is produced (결정론 규칙) with concrete examples: 실적 급감, 재무·팩터 최하위권. This is far more specific than a tautology, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from its closest sibling, get_disclosure_signals, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no explicit statement about when to use this tool rather than a sibling, and no exclusions. Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it belongs in a risk or screening check, and the 60-day recency rule hints at short-term diagnostics rather than historical review.

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