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 states that the tool 'gets' flags, implying a read operation, but does not describe response characteristics, potential missing-data cases, or any operational caveats beyond the input format.

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 compact and front-loaded, stating the purpose immediately and then providing necessary argument details in a clear Args block. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema available, the description covers the essential purpose and input requirements. It is slightly incomplete in not offering contextual cues about when this warning data is relevant, but the core invocation information is present.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively by explaining the symbol parameter, requiring a single ticker without market prefix, and providing a concrete example ('005930'). This adds meaningful guidance beyond the bare schema property.

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 tool's function: retrieving investment-caution flags (매수 유의사항) for a single KRX symbol, with concrete examples like 관리종목/VI. It distinguishes itself from sibling quote and company-data tools by focusing specifically on warning flags.

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 gives input format guidance ('single ticker symbol, no market prefix') but does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_stock_info or get_current_price. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative selection criteria are provided.

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