krx_stock_base_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only adds the odd 'HTTPS-only' constraint and the singular scope. It does not disclose whether credentials are needed, what happens for missing or invalid inputs, rate limits, or the structure of the returned base information.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriately compact for a simple tool. However, 'HTTPS-only' is awkwardly placed and the omission of any parameter guidance makes it slightly too thin for the three-parameter signature.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should compensate with more context about expected behavior and return values, but it does not. An agent invoking this tool would still need to infer the meaning of 'issue base information,' the market parameter, and the output format.

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 0%, so the description was expected to explain the three required parameters, but it only mentions 'one ticker/date' and says nothing about the required 'market' parameter or what the values mean. The schema's patterns and enum are useful, but the description adds little semantic value beyond the singular scope.

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 ('Fetch') and names a concrete resource ('KRX issue base information') scoped to one ticker/date, which is clear in isolation. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like krx_daily_trade, and the phrase 'HTTPS-only' is confusingly placed, so it stops short of full sibling distinction.

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?

There is no statement about when to use this tool versus krx_daily_trade, the DART siblings, or any alternative. The only implied guidance is singularity ('one ticker/date'), but no exclusions, prerequisites, or trade-offs are provided.

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