list_themes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds meaningful operational detail: 7 pages, 40 themes per page, and sorting by previous-day change rate.

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 front-loaded: purpose, trigger phrases, pagination information, sort order, and parameter details each earn their place. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 list tool with an output schema, the description covers everything needed to call it correctly: page bounds, default, ordering, and example user queries. No critical call context is missing.

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 schema has one undocumented integer parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It fully does by documenting the page range (1~7) and the default value (1).

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?

States a specific action and resource: fetching the Naver Securities theme list, with example user queries that clarify intent. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_theme_stocks or list_sectors, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Provides clear trigger examples ('어떤 테마가 있어?', '테마 리스트', '오늘 강세 테마'), which tells an agent when to use this tool. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it lacks the explicit routing of a 5.

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