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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by stating the return contents (summary plus source links), but says nothing about recency window, article count, or behavior when no news exists.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, front-loading the resource and immediately qualifying what the summary contains and that links are included. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 one-parameter, non-destructive read tool, the description covers purpose, payload, and output shape (summary + source links) even without an output schema. The remaining gap is fuzzy recency ("가장 최근") and no indication of result volume or empty-state behavior.

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% and the symbol parameter already carries a format example and a fallback instruction pointing to search_stocks, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only implies the symbol by saying "이 종목의" and adds no new parameter meaning, matching the baseline 3.

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 names a specific resource (the most recent news summary for a stock) and even characterizes the payload — why the stock moved plus source article links — so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as get_disclosure_signals or get_market_briefing, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the parenthetical "왜 움직였나" (why it moved) signals the scenario of explaining recent price action. There is no statement of when not to use it, nor any named alternative for broader market or disclosure news, so guidance is adequate but thin.

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