get_etf_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains parameter behavior (filter, sort, limit) but fails to mention whether the operation is read-only, required permissions, or any rate limits. As a list operation, read-only hint is expected but omitted, leaving safety ambiguity.

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 a single-line summary followed by parameter explanations in a structured list. Every sentence adds necessary context without redundancy, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 (so return format is covered), the description adequately documents the three parameters, their defaults, and valid values. Missing are potential error conditions or pagination details, but for a straightforward list tool it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description adds significant value by listing valid values for category (seven Korean labels) and sort_by (three options) and clarifying limit's default and maximum. This goes beyond the schema's basic type and title information.

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 'ETF목록 — ETF 전체 목록 조회 및 카테고리별 필터링' which means 'ETF list — view full ETF list and filter by category.' This specifies both the resource (ETF list) and the action (view and filter), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_etf_info (single ETF details) and other list tools.

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 lists available categories and sort options, implying when to use (e.g., for a filtered ETF list or sorted results). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools, missing guidance on choosing between list tools like get_sector_stocks.

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