data_go_kr_generic_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions that serviceKey is auto-filled (an important side effect), but does not disclose other behaviors such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or whether the tool is read-only or destructive. The description implies a safe call, but lacks explicit behavioral details beyond the auto-fill mechanism.

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 remarkably concise: three sentences that front-load the purpose, then dive into usage details. Every sentence adds unique value—purpose, parameter semantics, and recommendation for alternatives. No wasted words.

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 that there is no output schema, the description does not mention return values or error formats. However, for a generic endpoint tool, the focus on input parameters and usage is appropriate. The description covers why, when, and how to use it, but could benefit from a note on response format or common error codes. Still, it feels sufficient for an agent to invoke 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?

There are 3 parameters (base_url, path, params) with 0% schema description coverage, meaning the schema provides no descriptions. The description compensates by explaining that base_url and path come from the endpoint, and params should not include serviceKey. It also notes that params is an object (additionalProperties: true). While not exhaustive (e.g., no format details for base_url), it adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 it is a generic tool for calling other public data portal services not having a client code. It specifies the verb (call/invoke) and the resource (공공데이터포털 services), distinguishing it from sibling tools that are specialized (e.g., dart_search_company, kosis_get_statistics_data). However, it does not explicitly name these siblings, relying on the context of 'pre-made client 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 provides excellent usage guidance: it explains when to use this tool (for services without client code), what to put in base_url/path (endpoint from application details), and what not to include in params (excluding serviceKey since it's auto-filled). It also recommends creating a dedicated client/tool for frequently used services, pointing to a README extension guide. This explicitly helps the agent decide between this generic tool and alternatives.

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