get_stock_warrant_daily

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation via '조회합니다' but does not disclose limitations, authentication needs, behavior for invalid dates, or any other operational traits.

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 two lines: a one-sentence purpose and an Args section. It is front-loaded, with no redundant phrasing or irrelevant detail.

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?

The tool is simple, with one parameter and an output schema, so return values are covered. However, it lacks usage differentiation among many sibling daily-data tools, and the absence of annotations and usage guidelines leaves significant gaps for agent decision-making.

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 has no description for basDd (0% coverage), but the description provides '기준일자 (YYYYMMDD)', explaining the parameter's meaning and format. This compensates for the schema gap.

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 '신주인수권증권 일별매매정보를 조회합니다' (retrieves daily trading information for stock warrant securities), using a specific verb ('조회합니다') and a specific resource ('신주인수권증권'). The term clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like ELW or subscription rights.

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. The description only states what the tool does, with no mention of exclusions, alternative tools, or criteria for selection.

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