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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context about the kind of flags returned and symbol formatting, but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, whether any permission is needed, or how errors or empty results are handled.

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: the first sentence conveys the tool's purpose, and the Args section adds only necessary parameter details. There is no redundant filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 with an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what kind of data is returned and how the input must be structured. It is slightly incomplete only in not offering any guidance about choosing between this and related warning/stock-information tools.

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 provides no description for the 'symbol' parameter, so the description fully compensates. It specifies that the symbol must be a single ticker, must not include a market prefix, and gives a concrete example ('005930'), which is exactly what an agent needs to format the argument correctly.

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 a specific action and resource: getting investment-caution flags for a single KRX symbol. It further clarifies the domain with concrete examples like 관리종목/VI, making it easily distinguishable from sibling tools that focus on prices, orders, or company profiles.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: when you need caution flags for one KRX symbol. It also provides an important usage constraint by requiring a single ticker without a market prefix. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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