get_index

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 discloses that the tool returns 'current values' but does not specify data freshness, update frequency, or any side effects. For a simple read-only tool, this is adequate but lacks depth.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the core function and then adding example queries. Every word is purposeful, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 that the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the essential purpose and usage context. It could mention that indices are Korean-market specific, but that is implied by 'KOSPI' and 'KOSDAQ'.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is no need for parameter explanations. The description does not contradict the schema and provides sufficient context by naming the specific indices.

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 retrieves current values of KOSPI and KOSDAQ market indices, and provides example queries that illustrate its purpose. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools that deal with stocks, charts, or specific indicators.

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 includes explicit example queries (e.g., '코스피', '코스닥', '시장 지수') indicating when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives for related but distinct queries.

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