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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral information: theme queries are ranked by term frequency in business descriptions, which an agent could not infer from any structured field.

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 with zero filler: purpose first, usage trigger second, non-obvious ranking behavior last. Every sentence carries distinct 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?

With no output schema, the description could say more about the result shape (e.g., that matches come back as stock entries with tickers), but for a simple two-parameter search it covers purpose, usage trigger, matching fields, and theme ranking adequately.

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 only 50% (only query is documented), but the description compensates by spelling out what query matches — name, code, sector, group name, theme — well beyond the schema's bare '검색어'. The optional limit parameter remains unexplained in both schema and description, which keeps it from a 5.

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 and resource (find stocks) and enumerates the matchable fields: name, ticker code, sector, group name, and theme. This clearly separates it from siblings like company (a single known ticker), rank, and search_filings, though it never names those alternatives outright.

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?

'종목코드를 모를 때 먼저' gives a concrete when-to-use trigger — reach for this before a ticker-keyed lookup tool like company. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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