ecos_get_key_indicator

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully compensates by clearly explaining date format requirements (monthly=YYYYMM, quarterly=YYYYQn, daily=YYYYMMDD) and listing the exact supported indicators. This is sufficient behavioral context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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—two short sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides enumerations and format rules. 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 the low schema coverage (0%) and no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter options, and date format rules. It is nearly complete for this simple key indicator lookup tool, though it omits details like error handling or response shape.

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 provides 0% description coverage, meaning no parameter descriptions exist. The tool description adds significant value by specifying the exact indicator values and date format rules. However, it could benefit from clarifying start/end meaning (e.g., date range, inclusive) but is adequate.

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 fetches frequently searched macroeconomic indicators by name, listing four specific indicator values. It is distinct from sibling tools like ecos_search_statistics and ecos_get_statistic_data, which imply broader search or data retrieval, while this tool targets specific key indicators.

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 specific indicator names ('기준금리', etc.) and start/end date format rules based on indicator frequency. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as ecos_get_statistic_data for a wider range of statistics.

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