export_us_to_excel

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions no row limit and no token consumption, but lacks details on rate limits, file size limits, or potential side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Well-structured with purpose, use case, and args clearly separated. Includes some Korean text which may be extraneous for English agents, but overall efficient and front-loaded.

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 there is an output schema (though not shown), description covers main use case and parameters thoroughly. Lacks mention of prerequisites or error handling, but complete enough for a straightforward export tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so description fully compensates by listing valid values for period and interval, giving ticker examples, and explaining filename auto-generation. Adds significant meaning beyond 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 clearly states it exports US stock long-term data to Excel with no token consumption. It distinguishes itself from get_us_chart by noting the 500-row limit, making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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?

It explicitly advises use for long-term data, backtesting, CSV, or upload to other AI, and contrasts with get_us_chart's row limit. However, it does not mention when not to use or other alternatives.

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