get_us_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the specific content fields (sector, industry, market cap, business summary) but does not disclose any additional behavioral aspects like return format, error conditions, or limitations. It neither contradicts nor significantly extends beyond the annotations.

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 compact and well-structured. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by usage examples and the parameter definition. Every sentence serves a clear function with no redundant wording.

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?

For a single-parameter, read-only info tool with an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, and how to specify the ticker. The return format is not described, but the output schema presumably handles that, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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 no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description explicitly explains the only parameter: 'ticker: US 티커 (예: "AAPL", "NVDA")'. This provides meaning and examples that the schema lacks, effectively compensating for the schema gap.

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 provides US company profile info (sector, industry, market cap, business summary) and gives concrete example queries ('Apple 어떤 회사', 'NVDA 사업 설명'). This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from price, financials, earnings, and news tools among the many siblings.

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 lists example questions that indicate when to use it, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. For instance, it doesn't say 'for financial statements use get_us_financials' or 'for price use get_us_price'. The guidance is implied through the provided examples rather than explicit exclusions.

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