kis_master_status

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

The description indicates a read-only query, which is transparent. However, without annotations, it carries the full burden but adds no details about rate limits, authentication, or edge cases (e.g., empty DB). It is adequate but minimal.

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?

A single, concise Korean sentence that contains no redundancy. Every word is necessary and informative.

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 tool with no parameters and a straightforward purpose, the description is nearly complete. It could optionally specify the output format (e.g., a list of markets with counts and dates), but the current version suffices.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by specifying what the tool returns (number of stocks per market, last update date), which exceeds the schema's empty definition.

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 queries the local stock master DB for market-wise stock counts and last update date. It uses a specific verb ('queries') and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools that deal with prices, charts, orders, or balances.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or contexts where other sibling tools would be more appropriate.

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