get_taiwan_stock_material_announcements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only notes that announcement_date is the release date, not the event date. It does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, what constitutes 'current', error handling, or potential side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 very short (one sentence), but it is well-structured and free of fluff. However, it sacrifices essential information for brevity. It could be expanded to include more context without losing conciseness.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (though not described), the tool is not fully specified. The description does not explain what qualifies as a 'material announcement', how 'current' is defined in terms of time range, or whether pagination or filtering beyond the parameters is supported. The output schema exists but is not referenced, leaving the return format ambiguous.

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 0%, yet the description only explains the meaning of 'announcement_date' (which is not a parameter but a field in output). It provides no explanation for parameters like 'limit', 'market', 'stock_id', or 'include_details'. The defaults are not explained, nor are the enum values for 'market' clarified. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema defaults.

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 'Get current MOPS announcements', which is a specific verb and resource (material announcements from Taiwan's MOPS). It adds a clarification about the meaning of announcement_date, helping disambiguate from event date. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, the tool name and description imply it covers material announcements, distinct from other sibling tools like news or financial reports.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, filters, or context for usage. The only usage hint is the date clarification, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice.

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