get_reports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It describes the output content but does not mention potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or ordering. The minimal disclosure leaves the agent unaware of important behavioral nuances.

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 clear front-loaded purpose, usage hints, and parameter explanations. It is well-structured for an agent to quickly parse, though the usage hint sentence could be considered redundant.

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, the description does not need to detail return values. It adequately covers parameter semantics and usage context. However, it could explicitly state the scope (Korean stocks) for completeness.

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 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section compensates well by providing code format (6 digits, example), and count default and max value. This adds crucial meaning beyond the schema's types and defaults.

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 recent securities firm analysis reports for a stock, including target price, opinion, summary, and PDF. The name and usage hints make the purpose unambiguous, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_consensus or get_disclosure.

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 provides context on when to use ('리포트', '증권사 분석', '애널리스트 의견', '리서치' 관련 질문). However, it lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, leaving some ambiguity among sibling tools.

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