get_us_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states it returns US stock info but does not disclose behavior like data freshness, authentication needs, or error handling. Given the simplicity, it is adequate but could mention that it only works for US tickers and returns a profile object.

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 brief, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and includes clear args. Every sentence provides value without redundancy.

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 output schema exists and the tool's purpose is straightforward, the description covers the essential information: what it returns (profile info) and what input is required (ticker). No gaps for this level of complexity.

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 sole parameter 'ticker' is described as 'US 티커 (예: AAPL, NVDA)' which clarifies the input format and examples. With 0% schema coverage, the description adds necessary meaning beyond the schema field name.

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 returns US company profile information including sector, industry, market cap, and business summary. Examples like 'Apple 어떤 회사' illustrate usage. It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on market data, news, or financial statements.

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 queries and indicates this tool is for obtaining company profile information. While it does not explicitly exclude other tools, the context and siblings make it clear when to use this tool. A brief note on not using for price or news data would improve clarity.

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