explain_classification

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Show' implies a read-only operation and the purpose is clear, but it does not state side effects, permission requirements, or behavior for invalid inputs. This is adequate for a simple diagnostic tool but lacks depth beyond the obvious read-only implication.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core behavior, followed by a usage hint and parameter documentation. Every sentence earns its place, and the Args section is clearly structured. There is no redundant 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter), the presence of an output schema, and the explicit usage context, the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose, the scenario, and the parameter. It could add notes on error cases or limitations, but those are not essential for such a straightforward tool.

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 input schema has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively by explaining the parameter as 'The ETF product name' and providing a concrete example ('KODEX 삼성전자채권혼합'), which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare 'name' field. For a single parameter this fully resolves ambiguity.

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: 'Show which keywords drove the classification of an ETF name.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_etf or list_filters, as it is the only tool that explains classification decisions.

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 a clear context: 'Use this to audit a filter result that looks wrong.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. That fits the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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