get_stock_exchange_securities

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, implying a read operation, but does not mention permissions, rate limits, side effects, or data freshness. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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: one line stating the purpose followed by a clear 'Args' block. It front-loads the key information and avoids unnecessary text. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no fluff.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does not explain the return structure or the nature of 'key information'. Given many sibling tools with similar names, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand what data this tool provides or to differentiate it accurately.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description's 'Args' section adds meaningful explanations for all three parameters: corp_code (8-digit required), bgn_de (start date YYYYMMDD), end_de (end date YYYYMMDD). This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it could include format constraints or defaults.

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 of a specific report (comprehensive stock exchange/transfer securities report). The verb '조회' (retrieve) is specific. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like get_stock_exchange_decision or get_stock_acquisition, which could 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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage without any comparative information.

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