get_price_limits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the null-return behavior for markets without price limits, and it implies the tool returns both upper and lower limits. This is useful but not exhaustive; for instance, it does not mention error handling or whether the limits are for the current trading day (although '당일' does indicate that).

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 appropriately concise: one purpose sentence, one behavioral note, and an Args line. It is front-loaded with the core function and contains no redundant or tangential content. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return structure. It covers the main edge case (null for no-limit markets) and clearly defines the input. It is complete for a simple lookup tool, though it could optionally mention how invalid symbols are handled, but that is not essential.

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 schema has only one parameter, 'symbol', with no description (0% schema description coverage). The description adds '종목 심볼' (stock symbol) in the Args section, which provides basic meaning. However, this is essentially a restatement of the parameter name and does not add nuance like format or examples. It meets the minimum needed to compensate for the schema gap but does not go beyond.

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 function in Korean: 'retrieves the day's upper/lower price limits for an instrument.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, none of which mention price limits. The action and scope are unambiguous.

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 provides an implicit usage context: use this tool to get price limits. It also adds a relevant behavioral note that null is returned for markets without price limits (e.g., US stocks), which informs when results may be nil. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus an alternative, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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