search

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, so the description adds useful context beyond them: codes can change due to delisting/reallocation, and the alias search_stock is disclosed. This is meaningful context beyond the structured 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 content is well-structured and front-loaded: a one-line purpose, concrete examples, a highlighted warning, an alias note, and a compact Args section. No repetitive or filler text.

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 one-parameter read-only search tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description is complete. It covers the parameter, usage trigger, a critical caution, and the alias, so an agent can invoke it correctly without external lookup.

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 only defines query as a string, and description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the semantic load. It defines query as the stock name or code and provides three concrete examples (삼성전자, 005930, 알멕), fully compensating for the bare 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 opens with a clear verb and resource: '종목명 또는 종목코드로 한국 주식 종목을 조회합니다' (searches Korean stock issues by name or code), which distinguishes it from US/ETF/index siblings. Example queries make the intended usage concrete.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use instruction: if the user only knows a stock name and not the code, this tool must be called first and codes must not be guessed. It stops short of naming alternative tools for non-Korean searches, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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