search_stock

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the returned field list, but that duplicates the output schema rather than disclosing new behavior such as result ordering, matching semantics, or rate limits.

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, zero filler, with the core purpose and scope front-loaded before the return summary. Every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and the market scope plus accepted key types make the tool callable as-is. Minor gaps remain around result ordering and whether matching is exact or partial, but nothing essential is missing for a simple search 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% — both 'query' (with Korean example and code format) and 'limit' (1-50) are documented in the schema. The description's 'by name or code' merely restates the query parameter and adds no format or matching semantics beyond it, so 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?

States a specific verb (Find) and resource (Korean listed securities) plus the exact market scope (KOSPI/KOSDAQ/KONEX) and the lookup keys (name or code). An agent can immediately distinguish this lookup tool from the data-fetching siblings like get_quote or get_ohlcv that require an already-known symbol.

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 implied by the phrasing 'by name or code' — an agent infers this is the resolution step before calling quote/OHLCV tools. However, it never explicitly says when to use this versus the alternatives, nor states any prerequisites or exclusions, so guidance stays at the implied level.

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