질병 정보 / 통계 조회

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the two operation modes (disease lookup vs. statistics) and the breakdown dimensions, and mentions the data items (환자수, 요양급여비). However, it does not disclose output format (text vs. json), the requirement for sickCode and year in statistics mode, or any API limitations such as pagination or rate limits. These details are partially in the schema but not in the description.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loads the primary action, and includes only essential details (modes, breakdown dimensions, source). No filler or repetition of schema information. It is efficient and well-structured.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the core functionality but does not explain the response structure, how parameters combine (e.g., diseaseName filtering, pagination), or what the default output looks like. The schema fills many gaps, but with no output schema, the description should provide more detail about return formats and constraints. It is adequate but not complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful interpretation of the statType enum by mapping '조회만' to disease lookup and listing the other enum values as breakdown dimensions (성별연령/입원외래/종별/지역별). It also clarifies that sickCode is needed for statistics. This goes beyond the schema's brief per-parameter descriptions, justifying a 4.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: query disease names/codes (statType='조회만') or retrieve medical statistics for a specific disease code broken down by gender-age, inpatient/outpatient, type, and region. It uses clear verbs (조회, 통계 조회) and identifies the resource (질병명·코드, 진료통계), distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on hospitals, drugs, and nonpayment.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: for disease information/statistics from the HIRA service. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'use this instead of X', but the sibling tools operate in different domains (hospitals, drugs), making the intended use unambiguous. No exclusion criteria are provided, so it stops short of a 5.

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