get_sector_stocks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: sub-sectors are rolled up into the result, ordering is by market cap descending, and monetary values are KRW-converted even for US listings — details an agent cannot learn from 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?

Two short sentences with the core scope front-loaded and the currency caveat second; nothing is redundant or buried.

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 read-only, two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, inclusion of sub-sectors, sort order, and currency normalization. It omits any statement about result size or truncation behavior, which is the only notable gap for a list-style endpoint.

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 coverage is 50%: sector_id is already documented as coming from list_sectors' sectorId, while market_country's enum has no textual explanation. The description adds only the currency-conversion implication for US stocks, which indirectly clarifies the KR/US dimension but does not describe the selector itself.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('섹터에 속한 보통주를 ... 조회한다') and adds differentiating scope: sub-sectors are included and results are sorted by market cap descending. That separates it from list_market_stocks and get_sector_etfs without naming them, so it is clear but not explicitly routed against 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?

Provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings such as get_sector, get_sector_rankings, get_sector_etfs, or list_market_stocks. The intended usage is only inferable from the described scope, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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