get_markets_margin_alert

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context by noting 'Standard+ only' and '[Supported plans] Standard / Premium', which is a plan restriction not present in annotations. It also clarifies the data scope (per-stock restriction status). This goes beyond annotation-only disclosure, though it doesn't describe every behavioral nuance (e.g., rate limits, pagination).

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 compact and well-organized: a one-line summary, a usage line with relevant keywords, an explicit alternative, a plan note, and a clear argument list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. The structure makes it easy to scan.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 optional params, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage boundaries, plan requirements, and parameter formats. Minor gaps remain about parameter combinations and return value specifics, but the output schema handles return details. Overall, it 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by covering all four parameters: code format ('5 digits, e.g. 27800'), date format ('YYYYMMDD or YYYY-MM-DD'), and the semantics of date_from/date_to as 'range query'. It would benefit from explaining how parameters interact (e.g., whether date vs. date range are mutually exclusive), but it provides substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Per-stock margin trading restriction status: 増担保規制・信用規制.' It clearly indicates what data is returned and explicitly distinguishes itself from a related sibling tool by stating 'For margin balances... use get_markets_margin_interest instead.' This fully differentiates it from other tools.

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 provides explicit when-to-use context ('Use for 追証, 規制銘柄, 増担保規制, 信用規制, margin restriction/alert') and names an alternative tool for a different use case ('For margin balances... use get_markets_margin_interest instead'). This leaves no ambiguity about which tool to select for margin alert versus balance queries.

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