Toss Get Stock Warnings

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the market-scope constraint (KRX or US) and that exactly one symbol is inspected, but says nothing about what the returned flags mean, their categories, or whether an empty result is possible.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope constraint follows immediately after the verb and resource.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient to trigger a correct call, but the agent still lacks any picture of what 'buy warning flags' contains or whether they vary by market, which matters for interpreting results.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only partially compensates by clarifying that the symbol is a single KRX or US ticker. It adds no format guidance beyond the schema's regex pattern (e.g., suffix conventions for Korean vs US listings), leaving the sole parameter under-documented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get buy warning flags') plus the scope ('one KRX or US stock symbol'), which separates it from sibling data tools like toss_get_price_limits or toss_get_stock_short_selling. It does not name a sibling directly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'buy warning flags' implies a pre-trade risk check, but the description never states when to reach for this versus related tools (price limits, short selling, program trades) or any prerequisite conditions. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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