Get market hours

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds value by mentioning adjacent business days and the KR/US market scope, but it doesn't disclose return format, timezone handling, or edge cases. This is acceptable given the annotation coverage but leaves room for more detail.

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?

A single sentence with the verb front-loaded, no filler, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function. It is appropriately sized for the simple operation it describes.

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 read-only lookup tool with clear annotations and a simple schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It doesn't specify return structure, but that's not required given the absence of an output schema and the low complexity. A slight gap is the lack of details on what 'adjacent business days' means in the response, but overall context is adequate.

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 already documents 'date' with format and meaning, and 'market' has an enum. The description adds context by naming the markets and implying date is used to compute adjacent business days, but it doesn't explicitly explain parameter behavior beyond that. With 50% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but doesn't fully clarify the interplay between date and market.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and clearly identifies the resource ('session and holiday information for the Korean or US market'), distinguishing it from sibling data-fetching tools. It aligns with the title and leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 implies when to use the tool (when market session/holiday info is needed) through its clear scope, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools. Sibling names suggest a broader ecosystem, but no direct comparison is made.

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