get_treasury_stock

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. It mentions analysis of acquisition, disposal, and cancellation for risk assessment, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify output format, data sources, or any limitations like rate limits or authentication needs. This is insufficient for a tool with three parameters and no output schema.

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 sentence in Korean that conveys the core purpose without unnecessary details. It's front-loaded with the main function, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity in English contexts.

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 of treasury stock analysis, three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how the analysis is performed, or any behavioral traits, making it inadequate for effective agent use without additional context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three required parameters with examples. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the tool analyzes treasury stock activities for risk assessment, which gives a general purpose. However, it's somewhat vague about what specific data or analysis it returns, and it doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_treasury_stock_acquisition' or 'get_treasury_stock_disposal' that might handle specific aspects of treasury stock.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions analysis but doesn't specify contexts or prerequisites, such as needing specific report types or years. This leaves the agent without clear direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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