get_stock_warnings

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral safety. It uses the verb '조회합니다' (retrieve/inquire), which implies a read-only operation. It also enumerates the types of warnings covered, giving content context. However, it does not disclose return format, whether it supports both KR and US stocks (despite the AAPL example), or any rate limits/permissions.

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 Korean sentence that immediately states the resource and warning types. There is no fluff or repetition, making it efficient and easy to parse for an agent.

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 read tool, the description explains the key content (types of cautions), which is the main context an agent needs. It does not specify the return structure (list vs. object) or field names, but the absence of an output schema and the straightforward nature of the tool mitigate this. Some additional detail about the output shape or scope would improve completeness.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameter with a clear description and example, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add extra semantic meaning beyond the schema; it only explains the tool's overall purpose. Since the schema already documents 'symbol' adequately, the description provides no additional parameter-level value.

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 retrieves buy cautions for a stock, listing specific warning types (delisting trading, short-term overheating, investment warning/risk, VI activation, subscription rights). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which mention warnings.

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 tool's purpose is self-evident as a read-only query for stock warnings, and no sibling tool covers this domain, implying it is the go-to for caution information. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., before placing a buy order) nor when not to use it.

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