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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. Beyond those annotations, the description adds useful behavioral context: it is a public record, covers recent 30-day signals and outcomes, and includes Upbit and Binance status notices. It does not discuss freshness guarantees or rate limits, but those gaps are minor here.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then enumerates the specific record contents. It is somewhat long, but the detail is relevant because there is no output schema, and the bilingual structure remains readable.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly by listing signals, outcomes, warning flags, delisting dates, and listing-age checks. The main missing piece is routing guidance versus sibling tools, which prevents a perfect score.

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 single parameter already documents that it accepts Upbit KRW-market symbols or Korean names with examples. The description confirms the one-coin scope but adds no parameter meaning beyond the 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 that it shows a public KnockWatch record for one Upbit KRW-market coin, and it lists the specific signals, flags, dates, and notices returned. It is clear about scope, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as recent_signals or signal_record.

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 one-coin scope implies usage for checking a specific Upbit KRW-market coin. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance, despite having several sibling tools that an agent must choose between.

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