event_stock_exchange_decision

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe query operation. The description does not add behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, but it also does not contradict them. A neutral score is appropriate.

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?

A single concise sentence in Korean that front-loads the core purpose. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundant 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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description need not detail return values. The tool has a simple query structure with three parameters fully described in the schema. The description is minimal but adequate for a well-annotated, read-only 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%, with each parameter described (corp_code, bgn_de, end_de). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 verb '조회합니다' (queries) and the specific resource '주식의 포괄적 교환·이전 결정' (comprehensive stock exchange/transfer decision), distinguishing it from sibling event tools such as event_merger_decision or event_split_decision.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description only states the tool's function, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and sibling context. Implicit guidance exists through the sibling list, but no direct alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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