get_sellable_quantity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only implies a read operation via '조회' but does not disclose whether it requires specific permissions, reflects only settled positions, or returns zero when no holdings exist. No side effects or edge-case behavior is mentioned.

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 with no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the tool and its two-parameter schema.

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?

The tool has no output schema or annotations, and the description does not explain the return format, edge cases, or account-specific behavior. Given its role in checking sellable quantity before trading, key context like account-level interpretation and dependence on current holdings is missing.

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 covers both parameters with clear descriptions, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; '특정 종목' maps to 'symbol', but 'account_seq' is not referenced in the description at all.

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?

Description uses the verb '조회' (retrieve) with a specific resource '매도 가능 수량' (sellable quantity) of a specific stock, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_holdings or get_buying_power. However, it omits the account-scoping dimension, which is a required parameter and an important part of the tool's identity.

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 usage guidance is provided; the description simply states what the tool does without indicating when to use it over alternatives like get_holdings or get_position_risk. It also does not mention prerequisites such as having a valid account or existing holdings for the stock.

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