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. While '조회합니다' (retrieves) implies a read operation, the description doesn't mention pagination behavior (implied by page_index/count_per_page), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no results match filters. For a 15-parameter query tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose. There's zero wasted language or redundancy. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates.

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 complex 15-parameter query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the return format looks like, how pagination works, whether all parameters are optional filters, or what happens when multiple filters are combined. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without trial and error.

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 100%, with all 15 parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to guidelines, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.

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' - retrieves/gets) and resource ('독립유공자 공훈록 목록' - list of independence merit records). It's specific about what data is being accessed. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_hunkuk_codes or get_workout_affil_codes, which appear to be related code lookup 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when this list retrieval is appropriate versus using get_public_report or other sibling tools. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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