get_etf_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds some scope context by listing the returned ETF fields and code examples, but it does not disclose error behavior, validation requirements, or other operational traits. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 short and front-loaded with a clear summary line followed by a single parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or redundant repetition of the tool name.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It could be more explicit about this being for Korean/domestic ETFs rather than US ETFs, which would make tool selection fully unambiguous.

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's code property has no description, so the description carries the full burden for parameter semantics. It defines code as ETF 종목코드 and provides two concrete examples with fund names ('069500' KODEX 200, '360750' TIGER 미국S&P500). This is useful, though exact format validation rules are not specified.

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 provides ETF detail information and lists specific fields (기초지수, 보수율, 수익률, 구성종목 TOP10). The Korean ETF code examples imply this is for domestic ETFs, which helps distinguish it from siblings like get_us_etf_info, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for looking up individual ETF details by code, but it never mentions sibling tools such as get_etf_list or get_us_etf_info, nor any exclusions or prerequisite context.

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