get_research_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose two non-obvious behaviors: results are restricted to the current authenticated principal/organization and the response is paginated via cursor. This is meaningful transparency, although it stops short of specifying ordering, empty-result behavior, or explicit read-only confirmation beyond the verb '조회한다'.

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 one compact sentence that front-loads the resource and scope and ends with the pagination mode. Every phrase earns its place, with no filler or 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?

For a 3-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers scope and pagination well, but leaves room around when to use this over related tools and what limit means. It is minimally sufficient but not fully self-contained.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions cursor pagination and never defines report_id, limit, or cursor as parameters. The agent must rely on parameter names, types, and defaults alone, leaving the semantics of limit and the relationship between report_id and cursor unclear.

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 a specific lookup action ('조회한다') targeting '조사 보고서와 근거' (research report and evidence), scoped to the currently authenticated principal/organization. It clearly identifies the resource and operation, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as research_tax_issue or search_knowledge.

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 phrase '현재 인증 주체·조직 범위의' provides a clear access scope that implies when the tool is applicable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of a preferred sibling alternative, so usage must be inferred from the scope wording.

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