get_subscription_rights_daily

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly implies a query/read operation, but does not disclose any potential side effects, required permissions, or return format. Given the simple read nature, the disclosure is basic but lacks depth, resulting in an average score.

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: a single Korean sentence stating the purpose, followed by a minimal parameter annotation. It is appropriately front-loaded and contains no wasted words, making it easy to parse and act upon.

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 tool with one parameter and a clear output schema (not shown but known to exist), the description provides the essential purpose and parameter format. It could be enhanced with a hint about the output content, but given the simplicity and the presence of a structured output schema, it is reasonably complete.

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 provides only the parameter name and type (string) with no description, so the description adds crucial meaning by explaining 'basDd' as the reference date in YYYYMMDD format. This compensates well for the complete lack of schema-described parameters.

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 action ('조회합니다' - query) and the resource ('신주인수권증서 일별매매정보' - subscription rights certificates daily trading information). This well-defined target distinguishes it from the many sibling daily market data tools, which focus on other financial instruments like stocks, bonds, or indices.

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. There are no explicit use cases, exclusions, or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer applicability solely from the name and resource description.

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