get_treasury_stock

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states that the tool 'inquires' data, implying read-only, but does not explicitly confirm idempotency, safety, or any side effects. No behavioral traits beyond the name are disclosed.

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?

Description is concise (two lines plus parameter list) and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence is informative; no redundant or vague wording. Well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Covers purpose and parameters adequately, but lacks output description (no output schema) and any mention of prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases. For a simple retrieval tool, it is minimally viable but incomplete in providing a full picture.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates excellently. It explains each parameter thoroughly: corp_code (8-digit DART code), bsns_year (YYYY format with example), and reprt_code (enumeration of valid codes with meanings). This adds significant value beyond the schema's bare names.

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 the tool's purpose: inquires about treasury stock acquisition and disposal status. It uses a specific verb (조회합니다) and resource (자기주식 취득 및 처분 현황), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_treasury_stock_trust_conclude that focus on trust activities.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to treasury stock and other financial data, the description lacks context for choosing this tool over others.

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