get_etf_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses that keyword filtering matches only the ETF name, not holdings, and that category values are restricted to a listed enum. This goes beyond simple operation definitions and gives actionable 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 well-structured: a concise purpose line followed by parameter definitions and usage examples. Every sentence earns its place, and the length is appropriate for the complexity. No fluff or repetitive content.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, but the description covers all aspects: purpose, parameter semantics, edge cases, and alternatives. An output schema exists, so return value details are not needed. The description is fully complete for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 fully compensates by explaining every parameter: the category allowed values, keyword semantics with examples, sort_by options with Korean labels, and limit defaults/maximum. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 states a clear verb and resource: 'ETF 전체 목록 조회' (retrieve full ETF list) with category and keyword filtering. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_etf_info (which retrieves details of a single ETF) by implying this is the list-level tool.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: for 'OO 테마 ETF 뭐 있어' queries, use keyword directly rather than guessing category. It also explains when this tool is insufficient (searching for ETFs holding a specific company not in the name) and directs the user to get_etf_info as an alternative.

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