get_kr_market_calendar

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only and non-destructive, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It provides the date format and default value, which is useful, but does not disclose other behavioral details such as return structure or timezone, though an output schema exists. This matches the pattern of adding some value without rich behavior disclosure.

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 sentence followed by a brief parameter hint, front-loading the core purpose and adding no extraneous information. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter), the description covers purpose and parameter semantics adequately. Annotations handle safety and open-world behavior, and an output schema exists for return values, making the description complete within its context.

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%, so the description must compensate. It fully documents the only parameter 'date' by specifying the format 'YYYY-MM-DD' and the default 'today', which the schema does not provide. This is exactly the added value needed.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'KRX/NXT market operating calendar,' clearly stating what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_us_market_calendar by explicitly naming the Korean exchanges, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage context by specifying KRX/NXT, which differentiates it from the US market calendar sibling. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, so it falls short of full guidance.

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