get_foreign_listing

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but fails completely. It describes an analytical concept rather than tool behavior - it doesn't indicate whether this is a read operation, what data format it returns, whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. The abstract description provides zero practical guidance about how the tool actually behaves.

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?

While technically concise (one sentence), the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It uses abstract strategic language that doesn't serve the practical purpose of helping an AI agent understand and invoke the tool. The single sentence fails to convey actionable information about the tool's function.

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 complexity implied by the tool name (foreign listing data retrieval), no annotations, no output schema, and 3 required parameters, the description is completely inadequate. It should explain what data is returned, the tool's purpose in practical terms, and behavioral characteristics. Instead, it provides only an abstract analytical concept that offers no operational guidance for tool invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters (corp_code, bgn_de, end_de) with clear descriptions and examples. The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete. No additional parameter context is provided or needed.

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 '해외증권시장 상장을 통한 글로벌 시장 진출 전략 및 자금조달 구조 분석' (Global market entry strategy and funding structure analysis through foreign securities market listing) is vague and abstract. It describes a strategic analysis concept rather than specifying what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieves data about foreign listings). It doesn't clearly state the verb+resource action, making it difficult to distinguish from sibling tools like get_foreign_delisting or get_foreign_listing_decision.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple related tools in the sibling list (get_foreign_delisting, get_foreign_listing_decision, get_disclosure_list, etc.), but the description offers no comparison, prerequisites, or context about appropriate use cases. This leaves the agent with no usage direction.

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