get_etf_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists the information fields but does not mention that the tool is read-only, has no side effects, or any authentication or rate limit requirements. It fails to provide sufficient behavioral context.

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 concise with one line of explanation and one line of parameter details. It front-loads the key information, though the mixed Korean and English might be slightly confusing for non-Korean speakers. No wasted words.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the core data points (index, expense, returns, holdings) and provides examples for the parameter. For a simple info tool, this is reasonably complete.

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 has 0% description coverage for the parameter 'code', but the description compensates by explaining that it is an ETF ticker code and provides two concrete examples ('069500' and '360750'), adding 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 provides ETF detailed info including underlying index, expense ratio, returns, and top 10 holdings. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_us_etf_info' by providing Korean market examples (e.g., '069500' KODEX 200).

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 use for Korean ETF details via examples, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_etf_list or get_us_etf_info. No when-not or alternative recommendations are given.

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