get_stock_exchange_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions might be required, what format the output takes, whether there are rate limits, or any other behavioral characteristics. The description is purely about the subject matter, not the tool's behavior.

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 and fails to communicate essential tool functionality. It's not appropriately front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and the single sentence doesn't earn its place by providing actionable information for an AI agent.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what format the output takes, or even clearly state that it retrieves or generates reports. The description is more like a topic header than a functional tool description.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear documentation for all three required parameters (corp_code, bgn_de, end_de). The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3. However, it doesn't compensate for any gaps since there are none in 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 is a vague statement about analyzing governance restructuring and minority shareholder protection risks through stock exchange/transfer conditions, rather than clearly stating what the tool does. It doesn't specify the action (retrieve, generate, analyze) or what resource it operates on. While it hints at stock exchange reports, it's more of a topic description than a functional tool description.

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 the many sibling tools available. There's no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or specific scenarios where this tool would be appropriate. Given the extensive list of sibling tools (including get_stock_exchange, get_stock_total, etc.), this lack of differentiation is particularly problematic.

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