kdata-gate

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions what the tool does (builds a queue with specified components) and what it does not do, but fails to mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether it modifies existing data. Lacks critical behavioral detail.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences with the main action first. It front-loads the purpose and then lists exclusions. No unnecessary words, but could benefit from more structure.

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, no annotations, and minimal parameter info, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, error handling, or lifecycle of the queue. For a tool building a queue with multiple components, this is insufficient.

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 0% and the description provides no meaning for the three parameters (offer, category, target_market). The description only lists exclusions, not parameter usage or format. This is a severe 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?

The description clearly states the tool builds a 'buyer discovery queue' and lists components like public search links and qualification rules. The exclusion of scraping, sending, etc., helps differentiate from some sibling tools, but the purpose could be more specific about what the queue is used for.

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 exclusions (no scraping, sending, etc.) but does not give explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives among the many 'build_*' siblings. No context on prerequisites or typical use cases.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states the purpose and what the tool builds, but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it modifies state, requires authentication, or has side effects. The phrase 'operator-confirmed' hints at a validation step but is not elaborated.

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 plus a clarifying negation. It is front-loaded with the action and efficient, with every word contributing to the purpose. No unnecessary information.

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 lack of parameter descriptions, output schema, and annotations, the description fails to provide sufficient context. It does not explain what a 'cash sprint packet' is, how parameters affect it, or what the tool returns. For a build tool with two undocumented parameters, this is inadequate.

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 input schema has two parameters (usd_krw, target_krw) with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description does not explain their meaning or provide any additional context. The mention of 'target revenue math' is too vague to map to the parameters, so no value is added beyond 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 clearly states the verb 'Build' and the resource 'cash sprint packet', listing specific components (target revenue math, buyer segment queues, close scripts, proof links, guardrails). It also explicitly states what it does not do ('No sending, invoicing, or payment collection'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like build_invoice_draft_packet or create_direct_buy_ship_order.

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 stating what the tool does not cover (sending, invoicing, payment), giving a hint about when not to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as build_buyer_discovery_queue or build_delivery_pack, and does not provide prerequisites or context for use.

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?

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It adds that the mapping is from official sources only and that it does not cover certain functions, but it does not describe the action's side effects, authentication needs, output format, or potential data usage. This is insufficient given the lack of annotation support.

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 plus a brief disclaimer, with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently adds boundaries. Every word adds value.

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 has three optional parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the expected output, how parameters influence the result, or any prerequisites. An agent would lack sufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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 input schema defines three parameters (category, ingredients, target_market) with 0% description coverage and no enum constraints. The tool description provides no explanation of what these parameters mean, how they affect the output, or what values are acceptable. This is a critical gap for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 clearly identifies the verb 'Build' and the specific resource: a 'buyer-ready MFDS K-beauty ingredient source-map sample for Compliance Scout.' It further distinguishes itself by stating 'Official-source mapping only' and listing what it does not do, which helps differentiate it from sibling tools like get_kbeauty_ingredients.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does mention what the tool is not for (legal advice, import clearance, etc.), but it does not provide context on when it should be preferred over siblings like get_kbeauty_ingredients or other build_* tools.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It effectively discloses what the tool does and does not do, providing a negative list to avoid misuse. However, it does not mention side effects, persistence, or output format, which would enhance 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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action and contents, followed by clarifying exclusions. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 6 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides moderate context but lacks details on output format, how the pack is returned, or how parameters influence the result. It is adequate but leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 0%, and the description does not explain how the 6 parameters (buyer, offer, company, category, target_market, delivery_format) map to the pack contents. The description lists pack components (e.g., deliverables, QA checklist) that are not parameter names, leaving the agent to guess parameter meanings.

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 a specific verb ('build') and resource ('delivery scope pack'), lists the contents (deliverables, acceptance criteria, etc.), and distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating what it does not do (start delivery, send files, invoice, collect payment). This clearly differentiates it from other build tools like build_invoice_draft_packet.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (building an operator-confirmed paid delivery scope pack) and when not to use it (it does not start delivery, send files, etc.). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or prerequisites, so it is not a full 5.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It usefully discloses that the tool does not create accounts, post, submit proposals, etc., which clarifies its non-mutative nature. However, it omits details about side effects (e.g., external API calls), required permissions, or rate limits, leaving gaps.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main action. The list of what it builds is comprehensive but slightly cluttered; otherwise, it efficiently conveys the tool's scope and exclusions.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the input parameters, the return value/output format, or any prerequisites. An agent lacks critical information to invoke the tool correctly, especially for a complex build tool.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for its three parameters (offer, category, target_market), and the description does not explain what these parameters represent or how they map to the tool's behavior. With no compensation in the description, the agent cannot correctly set parameters without additional knowledge.

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 clearly states the verb 'Build' and the resource 'freelance listing pack' for specific platforms (Upwork, Fiverr, etc.). It lists exactly what goes into the pack (copy, price tiers, etc.) and explicitly states what it does not do (create accounts, post, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling 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 implies usage for preparing listing materials but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other build tools like 'build_cash_sprint_packet' or 'build_buyer_discovery_queue'. The 'Does not' list offers some behavioral boundaries but lacks direct when-to-use/when-not-to-use context.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral constraints: draft-only, no invoice issuance, no payment link, no sending, no collection. This is sufficient for understanding the tool's scope, though it omits prerequisites or permission requirements.

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?

Two concise sentences. The first lists the tool's components, the second clarifies constraints. No unnecessary words or repetition. Efficient 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 7 parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description should elaborate on parameter usage and return values. It only mentions high-level components without linking to parameters, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

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?

All 7 parameters have no description or enums in the schema (0% coverage). The description mentions components like 'line items' but does not map them to specific parameters (buyer, offer, company, etc.). It fails to add meaning beyond the bare parameter names.

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 clearly states the tool builds an operator-confirmed draft invoice packet with specific components (line items, buyer wording, payment-method placeholders, operator checks). It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing it is draft-only and does not issue, generate payment links, send, or collect.

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 explicitly notes 'Draft only; no invoice issued, payment link generated, sending, or collection,' which tells the agent when to use this tool (for drafts) and implies alternative tools for final invoices. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives, slightly reducing clarity.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the pack components and legal guardrails, indicating a non-destructive, information-gathering operation, but lacks details on side effects or required permissions.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence efficiently lists the pack components, and the second adds important constraints, though it could be slightly tighter.

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 lack of output schema and parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain input requirements or expected output, leaving significant gaps for a tool with three parameters.

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 does not add any meaning to the three parameters (category, price_band, target_market), leaving their purpose and format entirely undocumented.

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 clearly states the tool builds a seller-ready Korea sourcing signal pack, specifying components like product candidates and trend signal. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like build_buyer_discovery_queue.

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 mentions what the tool does not do (payment collection, private endpoint bypass), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It lists actions it does not perform (submit, scrape, invoice, etc.), providing some transparency. However, it lacks details on side effects, rate limits, or error handling, leaving gaps.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose and efficiently lists outputs and exclusions, earning its keep with each element.

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?

While the description covers the tool's outputs and exclusions, and the single parameter limits complexity, it lacks detail on the input format and does not explain return format (no output schema). For a benchmark tool, more contextual guidance on parameter semantics is needed.

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 only parameter 'target_market' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain its format, allowed values, or examples. This omission severely impairs the agent's ability to use the tool correctly.

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 clearly states it builds a benchmark packet comparing overseas ecommerce/seller MCP patterns against K-Data Gate positioning, with specific outputs listed (patterns, gaps, copy, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like build_buyer_discovery_queue by focusing on competitive benchmarking.

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 lists what the tool returns and excludes, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like build_cash_sprint_packet. The context of comparing against K-Data Gate implies a specific use case, but no direct guidance is given.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states what the tool does not do but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or whether the playbook is stored or returned.

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 short but the negative list feels appended. It could be structured more clearly to separate purpose from constraints.

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, no annotations, and unexplained parameters, the description is incomplete for an agent to effectively understand inputs or expected output.

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 does not explain the two parameters 'usd_krw' and 'target_krw', leaving the agent without any meaning for the 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 clearly states the tool builds a 'commercial operator playbook' and lists included elements, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling build_* 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 includes a negative list of what the tool does not do, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like build_buyer_discovery_queue or build_cash_sprint_packet.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only lists report components; it does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, side effects, or whether the operation is read-only or mutating.

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 but is overly long due to a list of components; it could be more concise and structured without losing meaning.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete; it lacks parameter explanations, return value details, and example usage, making it insufficient for reliable agent invocation.

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 three parameters (format, category, target_market) with no descriptions (0% coverage), and the description does not explain or elaborate on these parameters at all, leaving the agent with no guidance.

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 clearly states the tool builds a seller-facing sourcing pack report and lists key components like market validation and competition checks, distinguishing it from siblings such as 'build_buyer_discovery_queue' or 'build_cash_sprint_packet'.

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 negative guidance (what the tool does NOT do) but lacks positive guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites or context are mentioned.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It accurately discloses that the tool does not collect money or trigger Korean purchasing, and details outcomes: ordinary exceptions return payment_pending, risky ones return review_required. This is sufficient behavioral context for safe invocation without contradictions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by key behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It covers high-level purpose and two outcome states, but misses details on parameter semantics, prerequisites, error handling, and return structure, leaving gaps for effective tool use.

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 input schema has 10 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only broadly mentions 'bundled products, quantities, destination address, and seller responsibility consent,' mapping weakly to the schema. It does not explain key parameters like accepted_b2b_cs, accepted_regulatory_notice, or the structure of items, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 clearly states it's a tool for 'create a multi-item manual Korean buy/shipping exception request for an overseas seller or seller agent,' specifying the verb 'create' and the resource. It distinguishes itself from the main product flow and from sibling tools like create_direct_buy_ship_order.

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 notes 'This is not the main product flow,' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides context about what it does not do (collect money, trigger purchasing) but lacks clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses it does not collect money, triggers purchase, and returns payment_pending or review_required. However, it omits side effects, system interactions, and what the creation entails.

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?

Description is relatively short but includes extraneous information about K-Data Gate's primary purpose. Could be more focused.

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 15 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain all inputs, return format beyond statuses, error handling, or validation details.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning for only a few parameters (product, quantity, destination, consent). Many required params (email, unit_estimate_usd, etc.) remain unexplained.

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 clearly states 'create a manual Korean buy/shipping exception request for an overseas seller.' It distinguishes from siblings like create_buy_ship_cart_order by specifying 'manual' and 'exception', giving a specific verb and resource.

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 manual exceptions via 'Compatibility tool' and behavior notes (ordinary vs risky), but lacks explicit when-to-use versus siblings or exclusion criteria.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool is 'Official-source mapping only', implying read-only behavior. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a read-only lookup, this is adequate but not detailed.

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 two sentences long, with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and then adds a disclaimer. Every sentence earns its place.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., mapping data) or how to specify the parameters. A complete description would include at least a brief note on parameter usage.

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 input schema has 5 parameters (q, cas, claim, country, ingredient) with zero description coverage. The tool description does not mention or explain any of these parameters, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use them. This is a critical gap that forces the agent to guess or rely on the parameter names alone.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Lookup'), the data source ('MFDS cosmetics ingredient source mapping'), target audience ('K-beauty sellers'), and what it is not ('not legal advice or import clearance'). This distinguishes it well from sibling tools, which are mostly about building packets or getting Korean financial data.

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 gives a clear use case (ingredient source mapping for K-beauty sellers) and disclaims what it is not (legal advice). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for a simple lookup. A more explicit 'when to use vs. alternatives' would push this to 5.

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?

The description lacks behavioral transparency. With no annotations, the description should disclose traits like data freshness, rate limits, or default behavior when parameters are omitted, but it does not. It only states the output type without any side-effect or performance context.

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 extremely concise (one short sentence) but at the expense of necessary detail. It does not explain how to use parameters or what macro indicators are available. Brevity is good, but here it results in underspecification.

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 low complexity (2 optional string params, no enums, no output schema), the description should still clarify parameter usage and expected behavior when parameters are omitted. It fails to do so, leaving the tool incomplete for effective use. The sibling context suggests it's one of many Korea tools, but the description itself is insufficient.

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 input schema has two string parameters (period, indicator) with no descriptions and 0% schema coverage. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent without guidance on valid values or expected format. This is a critical 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?

The description 'Get Korea FX rates and macro indicators' clearly states the verb (Get) and resource (Korea FX rates and macro indicators). It distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on Korean stocks, real estate, or building packets, so the purpose is clear and specific.

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 usage guidelines are provided. There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_korean_stock_prices or other Korea-specific tools, nor any mention of prerequisites or limitations.

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?

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral transparency. It only adds the language note 'in English' but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, rate limits, data freshness, or pagination. This is insufficient.

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, which is concise, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded but does not earn its place due to missing critical information.

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 three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. The agent lacks the context needed to 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description offers no explanation of the three parameters (corp, year, report). The agent cannot infer their meaning or valid formats from the 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 clearly states the tool retrieves Korean company profiles and filings (DART) in English. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like get_korean_stock_disclosures, which may cause ambiguity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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?

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions summarization in English, but omits details like data freshness, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling for missing disclosures.

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 with no fluff. However, it could be structured more effectively by front-loading key details or using bullet points for parameters.

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 5 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to provide enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly, especially given the complexity and number of sibling tools.

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 adds no meaning to the five parameters (corp, report, ticker, date_to, date_from). The agent is left to infer their purpose from names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 clearly states it retrieves Korean DART equity disclosures and summarizes them in English, specifying the source and output format. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_korean_company_filings' but lacks detail on what constitutes a disclosure.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given numerous sibling tools like 'get_korean_company_filings' and 'get_korean_stock_flows', the description should include usage context or exclusions, which it does not.

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?

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states what data is retrieved but does not mention if the operation is read-only, any side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The minimal wording fails to provide the safety profile an agent needs.

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 with no extraneous words, effectively naming the data domains. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity—front-loading key terms is good, but the sentence alone does not earn its place due to omitted critical details.

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 5 undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain parameter formats (e.g., date strings), return structure, or usage patterns. An agent has insufficient information to use this tool correctly without external knowledge.

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?

None of the 5 parameters (market, ticker, date_to, investor, date_from) are described in the schema or the description (0% coverage). The description lists data types (investor flow, program trading, short, lending) but does not connect them to parameters, leaving the agent without guidance on how to construct a valid request.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves 'Korean investor flow, program trading, short, and lending data' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Korean stock flows'). However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_korean_stock_prices' or 'get_korean_stock_fundamentals', missing an opportunity to clarify its unique scope.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for flow data vs. price data). There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or contextual cues, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name 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?

No annotations provided, and the description only states 'Get' without behavioral details such as whether it is read-only, rate limits, required market conditions, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotations, the description carries full burden and fails to disclose anything beyond basic operation.

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?

Description is a single sentence, very concise, but omits essential information. It is front-loaded but insufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively. Every word is present but does not earn its place due to lack of detail.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and description fails to compensate for complex schema with 5 params. The tool is part of a family of Korean stock tools, and the description does not differentiate itself in terms of behavior, return format, or use cases. Entirely inadequate for proper invocation.

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?

Input schema has 5 parameters (corp, year, metric, ticker, quarter) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain any parameter's meaning, format, or valid values. No examples or hints provided.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Get' and resource 'Korean stock fundamentals and valuation ratios'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on prices, overviews, disclosures, etc. However, it lacks specificity on what constitutes fundamentals, leaving some ambiguity.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_korean_stock_prices or get_korean_stock_overview. Does not specify prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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?

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Get' implying read-only, but lacks details on behavior such as filtering behavior, rate limits, or what 'rows' includes.

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 extremely short but under-specified. A single sentence that fails to convey essential information is not concise; it is incomplete.

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 presence of many similar sibling tools and three parameters with no schema descriptions or output schema, the description is completely inadequate for an AI agent to understand and use 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the three parameters (market, sector, ticker). There is no explanation of their purpose or expected values.

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 'Get Korean stock market overview rows' which is vague and does not distinguish this tool from siblings like get_korean_stock_prices or get_korean_stock_fundamentals. 'Overview rows' is unclear.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative sibling tools. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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?

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits.

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, but it omits essential information about parameters and usage, making it under-specified rather than concise.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no parameter descriptions), the description is critically incomplete for agent use.

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 0% schema description coverage and the description not explaining any of the 5 parameters, the agent has no guidance on required formats or semantics.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves Korean stock OHLCV and traded value with a specific verb 'Get' and resource, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_korean_stock_overview.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_korean_stock_fundamentals or get_korean_stock_disclosures.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states that signals are 'derived' but does not explain derivation method, read-only nature, rate limits, required permissions, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with 4 parameters.

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, which is concise, but it omits critical information. It does not earn its place due to insufficient content; brevity here sacrifices completeness.

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, no annotations, and 4 undocumented parameters, the description is far too minimal. It lacks details on return format, filtering logic, and what makes these signals 'derived'. The tool's complexity demands richer 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%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (market, preset, sector, min_volume). The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail, leaving the agent guessing about parameter meaning and usage.

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 a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'derived Korean equity screening signals', which clearly indicates the function. It distinguishes from sibling tools that involve building or retrieving other types of Korean market data (e.g., filings, prices, fundamentals).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios suitable for screening signals, nor does it provide exclusions or references to other tools. The description is too generic to guide 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?

The description only adds that results are in English. No annotations exist, so the agent gets no info on safety (e.g., read-only vs destructive), authentication needs, rate limits, or error behavior. Critical behavioral traits are missing.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) but sacrifices clarity and completeness. It is front-loaded but fails to include necessary context that would earn its brevity.

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 2 unstructured parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. It lacks format guidance, examples, or behavioral notes.

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%. The description does not explain the 'region' and 'yyyymm' parameters, leaving the agent without clues about expected formats, allowed values, or their roles in fetching records.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves Korean apartment transaction records from MOLIT and provides them in English. The verb 'Get' and specific resource are well-defined, and no sibling tool targets real estate data, so differentiation is inherent.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any context cues like prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the name 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?

Without annotations, the description carries full burden but only states a basic action. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as data sources, freshness, pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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?

While the description is short (one sentence), it is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. It lacks structure and omits critical details, making it inadequate for a 3-parameter tool.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 3 undocumented parameters, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not cover return format, error scenarios, or any behavioral details needed for correct invocation.

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%, yet the description adds no information about the three parameters (area, lang, type). No hints on valid values, defaults, or examples, leaving the agent completely uninformed.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'Korean tourism places and attractions', and includes a qualifier 'in English'. It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_korea_real_estate or get_korea_weather.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any mention of context, prerequisites, or conditions for use, which is critical given many sibling tools.

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?

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only hints at the tool being for trend detection but does not explain if it is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format is. The agent lacks critical behavioral context.

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, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it omits essential details, making it under-specified rather than efficiently brief. It earns a middle score for being short but not comprehensive.

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 3 unannotated parameters, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the description is far from complete. It fails to explain what a trend index is, how the response is structured, or how to use the parameters correctly. The tool needs significantly more context for effective use.

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%, meaning the parameters period, keyword, and category have no descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter details, leaving the agent to guess valid values or formats. The description should at least hint at period format or category options.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves Naver search trend indices for a keyword and specifies a use case (viral detection for K-beauty/K-food). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like get_kbeauty_ingredients or search_korean_products.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for viral detection but does not mention when not to use it or what other tools might serve better (e.g., search_korean_products for product search). No prerequisites or context provided.

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?

No annotations exist, and the description provides only a minimal statement without disclosing data source, update frequency, or what exactly 'conditions and forecasts' includes.

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?

Extremely short, but under-specification for a tool with two undocumented parameters makes it too sparse.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and minimal description leave the agent without enough information to use 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning for 'city' or 'type' parameters; agent has no clue what values are valid.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'Korean weather conditions and forecasts', distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on finance and business.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives; no context about prerequisites or typical usage scenarios.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, any rate limits, or the meaning of 'English JSON' (response format vs query language). Behavioral traits are absent.

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, which is concise but lacks needed details. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, but misses important information.

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 three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not specify input formats, expected output, or any constraints.

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 does not explain any parameters (q, source, category). It mentions categories in the description but does not map them to the category parameter.

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 clearly states that the tool searches Korean products and lists example categories (K-beauty, K-food, K-pop merch). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, though no direct sibling with a similar purpose exists.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites or contexts where this tool is preferred.

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