Find Stock Code

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 does disclose meaningful behavior by naming the backing service ('Naver Stock autocomplete'), implying live external calls and fuzzy/prefix matching, but it omits rate limits, ambiguity handling, and whether exact matches are guaranteed. That is useful but incomplete disclosure for an unannotated tool.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the one practically important caveat about Korean names. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 two-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what the tool does, but it never indicates the shape of the result (e.g., codes paired with names) or the role of the limit parameter. An agent would know how to call it but not fully what to expect back.

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 coverage is 50%: 'query' is documented in the schema as 'Full or partial stock name', and the description's 'by name' merely reinforces it. The 'limit' parameter (default 10, max 20) has no description anywhere, and the description does not explain what limit controls or how results are ordered.

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 a specific verb and resource ('look up stock codes by name') and names the underlying mechanism ('Naver Stock autocomplete'), which is enough to tell it apart from siblings like search_research or list_brokers that cover different domains. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with any sibling, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

'Korean stock names work best' gives a usability hint about the intended input domain, which implies when the tool is useful. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance, no statement of what to do when the lookup fails, and no mention that this is a name-to-code resolver rather than a price or data lookup.

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