get_theme_stocks

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

With no annotations, the description covers partial matching for the theme name and parameter guidance (include_reason affecting token usage). It is a read-only operation with no destructive hints needed. The description adequately discloses behavioral traits.

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 and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by parameter explanations. It is well-structured in Korean with clear parameter names. Minor improvement could be using bullet points, but it is effective.

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 low complexity (3 parameters, no nested objects) and presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and a key behavioral trait (partial matching). It is complete enough for a simple list tool.

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%, but the description provides detailed explanations: theme_name with examples, count with default value, and include_reason with a strategic recommendation to omit for token savings. This adds significant meaning beyond the 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 clearly states that the tool retrieves stocks belonging to a specific theme, with concrete example queries. It also mentions partial matching for the theme name. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_themes (which lists themes) and get_sector_stocks (by sector).

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 example use cases and implies usage for theme-based stock queries, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like list_themes for discovering available themes.

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