get_overseas_listing

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like authorization needs, rate limits, or data freshness. It only states the function, not side effects or restrictions. As a read operation, it likely has no destructive effects, but this is unstated.

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, consisting of one sentence and a short parameter list. It is front-loaded with a clear action statement. However, it lacks structural elements like separate sections for output or examples.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description does not mention return values or expected output structure. It also references 'major matters report' but does not clarify the context. This omission reduces completeness for agent invocation.

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 0%, so the description carries full burden for parameter meaning. It explains corp_code format (8자리), and date parameters (bgn_de: 시작일 YYYYMMDD 선택; end_de: 종료일 YYYYMMDD 선택). This adds significant value beyond the schema's type info.

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 clearly states it retrieves key information for overseas stock market listings from major reports. It specifies the verb (조회합니다 - inquire) and resource (해외 증권시장 주권등 상장). However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like get_overseas_listing_decision, which may cause confusion.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where other tools (e.g., get_overseas_delisting) would be more appropriate.

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