get_stats_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that numOfRows/pageNo/type/serviceKey are auto-handled, date queries have a 1-month limit, and fetch_all controls pagination. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or error responses, but the main behaviors are covered.

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 fairly long but well-organized: purpose, usage instruction, operation list, common params, warnings. All information is relevant and necessary. Slight redundancy in listing operations with both English and Korean, but it aids clarity. Could be slightly more 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description does not explain the response structure or return values. It directs to another tool (get_g2b_operation_info) for response fields, which helps, but the agent still lacks a high-level understanding of what data is returned. The fetch_all description hints at totalCount, but more detail would improve completeness.

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 description adds significant value beyond schema. It explains operation with examples, lists common param keys (inqryDiv, inqryBgnDt, etc.) with semantics, and provides important usage notes like the date range limit and the special PPSSrch operation. This helps the agent build correct queries.

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 purpose: querying the Korean public procurement statistics service (공공조달통계정보서비스) via OpenAPI. It lists 14 specific operations with Korean descriptions, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_bid_data or get_contract_data which are for different data types.

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 explains how to use the tool (specify operation, pass params, auto-handled keys), and points to get_g2b_operation_info for detailed parameter info. It also warns about date range limitations. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other sibling tools (e.g., 'for statistics, use this; for bids, use get_bid_data').

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