get_financial_batch

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that this tool is optimized for token efficiency (citing a measured 78% token usage), and mentions the input limit (max 30 codes). However, it does not explicitly state it's read-only or describe error handling, but for a data retrieval tool this is sufficient.

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 with a clear first line defining purpose, followed by usage guidance and a concise Args section. Each sentence adds value—no fluff, and the distinction from get_financial is concise and front-loaded.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is complete: it explains when to use it, what it returns, the parameter format, and how it differs from the sibling tool. No gaps remain for the agent to misunderstand.

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 only defines codes as an array of strings, but the description clarifies it must be a list of 6-digit stock codes and caps at 30 items. This adds critical validation and usage context, making the parameter meaning clear.

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's function: providing a table of core financial metrics (PER/PBR/ROE, etc.) for multiple stocks. It also explicitly distinguishes it from get_financial by contrast ('한 종목의 **전체** 지표... 그때만 get_financial을 쓰세요'), making its purpose unique.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance with concrete examples like comparing multiple stocks or identifying undervalued ones, and explicitly names the alternative tool (get_financial) for single-stock deep dives. It also explains why (token efficiency) which is actionable.

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