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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured fields. The description adds no behavior beyond that: it does not state the default result count, the 100 cap, tie-breaking between ranks, or what the ranking output contains. Useful but not additive over annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence covering both the filtering action and the ranking criteria, with no filler. It is compact and readable, though it omits the one or two clauses (defaults, return shape) that would make the brevity cost-free.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema and no required parameters, the description should explain what a result row looks like and how filters combine with sorting. It covers the ranking dimensions but leaves the return shape and default behaviors unexplained, leaving real gaps for an agent composing a call.

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 78%, just under the high-coverage threshold, so the schema is doing most of the work. The description does map its named ranking dimensions onto sortBy values (yield, growth, streak, size) and implies the numeric filters, but it says nothing about market, securityType beyond the schema string, or paymentFrequency. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb (순위를 냅니다 / ranks) and resource (종목 / securities) and enumerates the ranking dimensions: 배당률, 배당 성장률, 연속 증가 연수, 규모. It does not explicitly contrast itself with search_securities or get_security_detail, so it falls short of a 5, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

The phrase '조건으로 걸러' implies this is the tool for filtered, ranked dividend lists, which distinguishes it in spirit from a plain search or detail lookup. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the sibling alternatives, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions, so usage must be inferred.

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