get_merit_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but provides minimal information. It doesn't mention that this is a read-only operation (implied by 'get' but not explicit), doesn't discuss pagination behavior beyond what's in the schema, doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no filters are applied. For a tool with 15 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Korean that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a data retrieval tool and gets straight to the point without preamble.

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 tool with 15 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the returned data looks like, how results are structured, whether there's pagination beyond the two pagination parameters, or what happens when multiple filters are applied. The description fails to provide the necessary context for an agent to understand the complete behavior of this data retrieval operation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't explain how filtering works, whether parameters are AND/OR combined, or provide examples of parameter usage. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('조회합니다' - retrieve/lookup) and resource ('독립유공자 공훈록 목록' - list of independence merit records). It's specific about what data is being accessed. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'get_public_report' or explain how this list differs from other data retrieval tools in the server.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when this list retrieval is appropriate compared to other sibling tools like 'get_public_report' or when to use the filtering parameters versus retrieving all records. The agent receives no contextual usage instructions.

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