get_market_calendar_kr

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only restates the tool name. It does not explain what the calendar contains (e.g., operating days, holidays), what the return format is, or how the optional date parameter affects the response. The read-only nature is implied by 'get' but not explicitly stated, and no additional behavioral context is given.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the core function. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word contributes to the meaning. No redundancy or unnecessary details.

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 simple nature of the tool (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally viable but not fully complete. It tells what the tool does but lacks information about the response shape or the effect of the date parameter beyond the schema. The agent can infer some behavior from the name, but there are gaps for a fully informed invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'date' parameter, which includes format (YYYY-MM-DD) and optionality. The description does not add any parameter-specific information, but since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'KR market operating calendar', which distinguishes it from its sibling get_market_calendar_us. The addition of the Korean term in parentheses reinforces the resource. This is a specific and unambiguous purpose.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for the Korean market specifically, nor does it reference the sibling get_market_calendar_us. There is no context about expected usage or prerequisites, leaving the agent without decision-making guidance.

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