get_etf_list

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

No annotations provided; description lists parameters and defaults but omits behavioral aspects like read-only guarantee, side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. Not enough for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

Description is compact and front-loaded with purpose. Parameter details are concise. Could benefit from slight structuring (e.g., bullet points) but no waste.

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 presence of output schema, return type is covered. However, missing usage guidelines and behavioral transparency reduce completeness. Adequate for a simple list tool but not fully self-contained.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, description adds meaning by listing possible values for category (though garbled) and sort_by, and specifying limit's default and max. This compensates for schema's lack of detail.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves the full list of ETFs with optional category filtering, using specific verb '조회' (inquiry). Each sibling tool has distinct purpose (e.g., get_etf_info for single ETF), so this tool is well-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?

Description implies usage for getting ETF lists but does not explicitly state when or when not to use it. No mention of alternatives or context exclusions.

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