get_stock_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the exact fields returned (stock name, market, currency, status, shares) and the limit of up to 200 comma-separated symbols, which informs expectations beyond the raw schema and 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 and well-structured: a clear one-sentence summary followed by a structured Args section. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for a single-parameter read-only tool.

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, read-only, with an output schema), the description covers the what, the returned fields, and the parameter syntax. Combined with the annotations and output schema, the agent has complete information to select and invoke the tool correctly. The only gap is usage guidance, but that is already scored separately.

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 input schema provides no description for the 'symbols' parameter, and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates fully by explaining in the Args section that symbols should be comma-separated and limited to 200, giving both format and constraints. This is essential information beyond the schema's bare type declaration.

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 with a specific verb ('조회한다' meaning 'retrieves') and a well-defined resource: basic stock information including stock name, listing market, currency, listing status, and number of issued shares. This unambiguous scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_price (prices) or get_candles (candlesticks).

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 does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, such as naming alternatives or stating exclusions. It only describes what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage from context. There is no mention of 'use for static reference data' or 'use instead of get_price when you need fundamental data'.

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