get_public_report

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 only states the basic action. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, what format the results come in, whether there are rate limits, or how pagination works despite having pagination parameters. For a tool with 16 parameters and 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 in Korean that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words or structural complexity. It's perfectly front-loaded with the essential information.

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 tool with 16 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, whether it's a search or lookup operation, or how the various filtering parameters interact. 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?

The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 16 parameters including formats, constraints, and enum values. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does all the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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/looks up) and resource ('독립유공자 공적조서' - independence activist merit records), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't specifically differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_merit_list' which might retrieve similar data, so it doesn't reach the highest score for sibling differentiation.

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 like 'get_merit_list' or other sibling tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparison with other data retrieval methods available in the server.

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