get_statistics_list

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 tree structure navigation but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or behavior with invalid IDs. It adequately describes the browsing behavior but is not comprehensive.

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 main action, and contains no redundant or extraneous information. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's functionality.

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, the description could explain return format or navigation details (e.g., pagination, depth). It mentions tree structure but not how to traverse deeper levels. It is adequate for a straightforward list tool but not fully complete.

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 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the parameters. The description adds value by explaining the default behavior for empty parentId and listing the specific viewCode values with their meanings, enriching the parameter 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 uses specific verbs ('탐색합니다' meaning 'explore') and resources ('통계 목록' meaning 'statistics list'), and mentions tree structure navigation. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like search_statistics (searching) and analyze_time_series (analysis) by focusing on browsing and hierarchical exploration.

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 browsing statistics by topic or institution, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_statistics or quick_stats. No exclusions or usage hints are provided.

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