get_kospi_stock_base_info

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only indicates a read operation ('조회') and provides no details on output format, data scope, pagination, or any side effects. It is not misleading but is overly minimal.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with the core statement in one sentence and parameter details in a compact Args block. Every element serves a purpose with no waste.

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 that the tool has an output schema and a single well-documented parameter, the description is minimally adequate for a simple lookup. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral context, leaving some gaps for an agent deciding when to invoke it.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates by documenting the single parameter 'basDd' with its meaning (기준일자) and format (YYYYMMDD). This adds clear value beyond the raw schema.

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 the specific action '조회합니다' (retrieve) and the resource '유가증권(KOSPI) 종목기본정보' (KOSPI stock base info). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_kosdaq_stock_base_info and get_konex_stock_base_info by explicitly naming the KOSPI market.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for KOSPI stocks specifically, nor does it contrast with related tools like get_kosdaq_stock_base_info or get_kospi_stock_daily.

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