get_stock_warnings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, mention rate limits, pagination, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the action and object. It has no wasted words and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description is minimally viable: it states what it does and for which input. However, it lacks context about the returned data, usage scenarios, and behavioral safety. Given no output schema and no annotations, a bit more detail would improve completeness, but the current level is acceptable for a basic getter.

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 one parameter (symbol) with full description coverage (100%). The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'for a symbol', so the baseline score of 3 applies. It does not clarify input formats or provide examples, but the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 'Get buy-caution warnings (매수 유의사항) for a symbol' clearly identifies the specific verb (Get), the resource (buy-caution warnings), and the scope (for a symbol). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_prices or get_orderbook, so purpose clarity is excellent.

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 does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Given the many sibling tools, explicit usage instructions would be valuable, but they are absent.

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