get_stock_warnings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the specific set of warning signals the tool inspects, which goes beyond the tool name and gives the agent a concrete understanding of the tool's scope and behavior.

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 compact: three short sentences plus a structured Args line. It front-loads the main purpose and enumerates the checks without unnecessary filler, making it easy to parse.

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 read-only lookup tool with one parameter, an existing output schema, and clear scope, the description covers purpose, warning categories, usage context, and parameter meaning. No critical information is missing.

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 one parameter 'symbol' with 0% description coverage. The description provides a minimal definition '종목 심볼' (stock symbol), which essentially restates the property name and does not add format, exchange, or usage details. It is adequate but not enriching.

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 states '종목의 매수 유의사항을 조회한다' (retrieves purchase cautions for a stock) and explicitly lists the specific warning categories checked (정리매매, 단기과열, 투자경고/위험, VI 발동, 신주인수권). This clear verb+resource+scope strongly distinguishes it from sibling price, orderbook, and trade tools.

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 clear usage context: '매수를 검토하는 종목이라면 확인할 가치가 있다' (worth checking if considering buying a stock). It implies when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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