get_kr_market_calendar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool returns three business days (previous/current/next) and that it operates in an integrated KRX+NXT mode, which adds useful context. However, it does not mention holidays, return format, or timezone behavior, but for a simple calendar lookup the disclosed scope is reasonably sufficient.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the purpose and output scope. There is zero wasted text, and all necessary information is conveyed efficiently.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains both the purpose and the returned data scope. It could be slightly more explicit about the exact structure of '장 운영 시간' data, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 already has 100% coverage for the single optional 'date' parameter with its own description, so the tool description adds little beyond implying the date is a reference point ('조회 기준일'). This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('조회' meaning query/retrieve), a specific resource ('국내 시장(KRX+NXT 통합 모드)의 장 운영 시간'), and the exact output scope (previous/current/next business day). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling 'get_us_market_calendar' by explicitly naming the KRX+NXT integrated domestic market.

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 clearly implies this tool is for querying domestic Korean market hours, while the sibling 'get_us_market_calendar' handles the US market. Although it does not explicitly say 'use this instead of get_us_market_calendar', the KRX+NXT qualifier provides clear context for when this tool applies, just without an explicit exclusion statement.

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