Oneul Sanji (오늘산지) catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavioral context (no auth needs, rate limits, or lookup-failure behavior), so it does not go beyond the annotations.

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 that leads with the purpose and then enumerates contents. Dense but each listed item earns its place by telling the agent what the response contains; 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by enumerating the returned fields (facts, shipping conditions, FAQ, guides). For a simple one-param read tool this is nearly complete, missing only guidance on finding the slug input and failure handling.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'product' parameter is fully documented in the schema as a slug or page URL. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('상품 하나의 상세 정보') and enumerates the kind of data returned (price, facts, shipping terms, FAQ, guides). It is clearly a single-product detail fetch, distinguishing it from list-oriented siblings, though it never names an alternative tool to differentiate explicitly.

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 offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it identify alternatives such as search_products (for discovery) versus this tool (for detail). Usage must be inferred from the name and field list alone.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. Since there is no output schema, the description's topic list is the only signal about what the payload contains, which is modest added value, but it discloses nothing about response shape, language, or size. Adequate but not enriching beyond the annotations.

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 compact sentence covering four well-chosen topics; nothing is wasted. It reads slightly like a truncated noun phrase rather than a statement of action, but it is front-loaded and free of 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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description should fully specify the returned content; the topic list does that at a high level but omits any detail on structure, language, or how comprehensive each section is. Combined with the absent usage guidance, an agent has just enough to call it but not enough to reason about the result.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Nothing in the description is needed or misleading on this dimension.

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 enumerates the content the tool returns (store intro, shipping/exchange/return policy, customer center, FAQ), which tells the agent the resource is the store's informational pages. However, it is a bare noun list with no verb, so the actual operation (retrieve/read) is only implied. Siblings like list_guides could plausibly overlap with the FAQ/guide content, and the description does nothing to draw that boundary.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives are named. The agent is left to infer that this should be called for store policy/FAQ questions rather than product or category lookups, purely from the topic list.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the behavioral constraint that only categories with sellable products are returned, which is useful context, but it says nothing about ordering, caching, or freshness beyond that.

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 the resource first, the scope qualifier second, and the returned fields in parentheses. No filler, though the extreme brevity leaves no room for any usage or routing guidance.

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 zero-argument, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, which is exactly the information the agent would otherwise lack. Ordering or pagination behavior is not mentioned, but nothing an agent strictly needs to invoke it is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. There is no parameter surface for the description to explain, and it correctly spends no wording on nonexistent inputs.

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 names a specific verb (list categories) and a resource (categories), and adds a meaningful scope qualifier: only categories that actually contain products currently on sale. It also enumerates the returned fields (name, slug, description, product count, address). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_product or search_products, which keeps it 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_products or get_product, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The only guidance is implicit in the scope phrase '판매 중인 상품이 있는', which hints at filtering behavior but not at tool selection.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful context that only published magazine posts are returned and that each entry carries title, summary and URL, but says nothing about ordering, pagination behavior or result size.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the content categories and then the returned fields. No filler, though the parenthetical field list is the only structural aid in an otherwise unpunctuated string.

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 no-required-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description does state what comes back, which is the main thing an agent needs. It remains thin on the only parameter and on result ordering/limits, which is a genuine but minor gap at this complexity.

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 single `limit` parameter has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description — no default, cap, or retry/paging semantics are explained. The schema constraints (min 1, max 30, default 10) carry all the meaning, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Names a specific verb-resource pair (list published magazine guides) and enumerates the returned fields (제목·요약·주소), which lets an agent distinguish it from the product/store siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with any sibling, so it lands at 4 rather than 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 description states what content exists but gives no when-to-use signal, no condition distinguishing it from search_products or list_categories, and no prerequisites. An agent must infer that this is the browsing endpoint for editorial content.

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

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the bar is lower; the description nonetheless adds real behavioral context by scoping results to '판매 중인' products only and disclosing the fallback ordering when the query is empty. It does not describe result volume or ordering guarantees beyond the default case.

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?

Three tightly written sentences: purpose first, then filterable dimensions, then the no-query default. Nothing is redundant and every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 read-only search tool with annotations carrying the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed to invoke it correctly: what is searched, what filters exist, and what happens with an empty query. Return-shape details are correctly out of scope, and the missing 'limit' documentation is minor.

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 coverage is 80%, so a 3 is the baseline. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by defining what the query field matches against (product name, ingredients, origin, producer) and by grouping category/price/shipping as 'filter' conditions, exceeding the schema's plain examples. The one gap is the undocumented 'limit' parameter, which appears in neither schema description nor description text.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('판매 중인 상품을 검색합니다') and enumerates the field surface the search covers (상품명·원재료·산지·생산자), so an agent immediately knows this is a multi-criteria product search. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_product (single-item lookup), which keeps it below 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?

It clearly states the filter options (검색어, 카테고리, 최대 가격, 무료배송) and gives the important default behavior when no query is supplied (추천순 목록). What is missing is explicit routing guidance, e.g. telling the agent to use get_product for details of a result or list_categories to obtain a category slug.

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