의원 진료 상위 5개 질병

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the data source (건강보험심사평가원), the time window (최근 1년), and the result scope (top 5 diseases + departments), which is solid behavioral context. It does not mention errors or rate limits, but the operation is clearly a read-only lookup.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and object, then adds time scope and source. Every clause 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 simple 2-parameter tool with a required ykiho and an optional format enum, the description is sufficiently complete. It states what is returned (top 5 diseases and departments), the time period, and the data source. No output schema exists, but the expected return is simple enough that this is adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The schema descriptions add valuable semantics: ykiho is explicitly tied to hospital search with clCd='31', and format has an enum/default. The description itself does not repeat parameter details, but the schema already provides strong guidance, earning a slight boost.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves the top 5 national-interest diseases and treatment departments for a clinic (의원) by ykiho over the past year. The verb '조회' and specific resource ('상위 5개 질병과 진료과목') make the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like general hospital info or disease stats.

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?

Usage is implied: use when you have a clinic's ykiho and need its most common diseases. The parameter description adds a concrete prerequisite by directing users to kohealth_search_hospital with clCd='31' to obtain the ykiho, but there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives.

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