get_stock_warnings

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only (readOnlyHint=true) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds behavioral context by enumerating the types of warnings returned, which helps the agent expect the data content. It does not discuss rate limits or data freshness, but annotations lower the bar for transparency.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and object, with a parenthetical list of warning types. Every word earns its place; no filler.

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 a simple one-parameter schema, an output schema exists, and annotations provide safety info. The description adequately covers the tool's purpose and scope, listing representative warning types. It could mention the market context (Korea) but the Korean terms imply it.

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 has one parameter 'symbol' with no description (coverage 0%). The description only mentions 'for a symbol', giving no type, format, or examples. It adds minimal meaning beyond 'symbol' in the 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 uses the verb 'Get' with a specific resource 'purchase warnings/cautions' and specifies the input 'for a symbol'. It lists concrete types (정리매매, 단기과열, 투자경고/위험, VI, 신주인수권 etc.), making it distinct from siblings like get_prices or get_trades.

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 for retrieving warning/caution status for a given symbol, but does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance vs alternatives (e.g., when checking listing eligibility or order constraints). No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are given.

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