get_stock_acquisition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool retrieves information but does not mention whether it is read-only, any rate limits, or other behavioral traits. The lack of transparency is a gap.

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 and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter details. Every sentence adds value, and there is no extraneous 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?

The description covers the purpose and parameters, but lacks information about the output format or what 'key information' includes. Given the absence of an output schema, more detail on return values would improve completeness for agent usage.

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 description adds meaning to the parameters beyond the input schema, specifying that corp_code is an 8-character DART code and that date parameters use YYYYMMDD format. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensation is valuable. However, it could further explain the purpose of the date range or the returned fields.

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 uses a specific verb ('조회합니다' - retrieves) and clearly identifies the resource ('자기주식 취득 결정 주요 정보' - key information on treasury stock acquisition decisions). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'get_treasury_stock' and 'get_stock_disposal' by specifying the context of acquisition decisions in major reports.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists the required and optional parameters but does not explain scenarios or prerequisites, leaving the agent without decision support on tool selection.

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