get_stock_warnings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description's contribution is the domain scope – the exact warning categories returned – which is genuinely useful. It does not say what an empty response means (no warnings) or whether the data is real-time, so it adds only moderate behavioral context.

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 lines: the purpose sentence first, then a compact list of covered warning types. Zero wasted words. The second line is a bare noun list without a connecting verb, which is slightly telegraphic but acceptable for an enumeration.

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 tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies the key missing piece: what kinds of warnings come back. Only the response shape (per-category fields, presence/absence semantics) is left unstated, a minor gap at this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single `symbol` parameter is well documented in the schema itself (6-digit Korean code vs. US ticker, plus a pattern). The description adds nothing about the symbol format or normalization, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("종목의 매수 유의사항을 조회한다" – retrieve a stock's buy cautions) and enumerates the five warning categories it covers (정리매매, 단기과열, 투자경고·위험, VI 발동, 신주인수권). That makes it distinguishable from most data siblings, though it never clarifies its boundary against get_price_limits, which could plausibly overlap with VI/price-limit topics.

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?

Usage is only implied: "매수 유의사항" (buy cautions) signals a pre-purchase risk check, which gives the agent a rough context. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus get_price_limits or get_stock_info, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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