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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that data is based on the previous day's closing price, not real-time, and clarifies default date and market behavior. It does not cover ordering or error cases, but the most important non-obvious behavioral trait is disclosed.

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 tightly organized with a lead sentence, a staleness caveat, an Args block, and a Returns line. Every sentence carries information, and nothing is wasted or redundant.

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 5-parameter schema, zero annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all parameters and the key behavioral caveat. It could add sibling differentiation and result-ordering details, but nothing essential for invoking the tool correctly 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter with concrete examples ('삼성전자', '005930'), defaults ('빈 문자열이면 최근 영업일'), and the mutual-exclusion rule for stock_name and stock_code. It adds meaning well beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states it retrieves Korean stock prices ('한국 주식 시세를 조회합니다') and supports lookup by stock name or code. It is a specific verb+resource, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_price_trend or search_stock.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool compared to siblings; alternatives are never mentioned. Parameter-level instructions are provided, but tool-selection context is left entirely to inference.

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