get_stock_increase_decrease

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'analysis' which suggests read-only processing, but doesn't specify output format, data freshness, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The description is functional but lacks operational context.

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 a single, efficient Korean sentence that packs substantial meaning. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though it could benefit from clearer separation of the tool's function from its analytical purpose.

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 insufficient. It explains what the tool analyzes but not what it returns, how results are structured, or what specific risks are identified. The analytical purpose is clear, but operational details are missing.

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%, providing complete parameter documentation. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but the schema adequately covers all three required parameters with clear descriptions and examples for report codes.

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 the tool analyzes stock capital increases/decreases based on periodic reports, focusing on capital changes and governance restructuring risks. It specifies the data source (periodic reports) and the analytical purpose, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_capital_reduction or get_paid_in_capital_increase.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions analysis of capital changes and governance risks, but doesn't specify prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when other tools might be more suitable for related financial data.

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