의약품 DUR 안전정보 조회

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that product name filtering happens server-side and ingredient name filtering happens client-side, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not mention the read-only nature, pagination behavior, or any rate limits, though these are partially inferable from the schema.

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 compact and front-loaded, consisting of one sentence that states the verb, resource, and filtering options, followed by a source attribution. Every piece of information earns its place, and it is easy to parse.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema and the presence of six parameters, the description provides essential context but omits details such as return format, behavior when no filters are provided, and pagination limits. The source attribution adds credibility, but the tool would benefit from a brief note on how to use the filters together or what the response contains.

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 mentions the two filter mechanisms (product and ingredient names) but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide. The schema already includes defaults and constraints for format, pageNo, numOfRows, and category.

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 retrieves DUR safety information across five specified categories (병용금기, 연령금기, 임부금기, 노인주의, 효능군중복) using product name (server filter) or ingredient name (client filter). This clearly communicates the resource and the filtering mechanisms, distinguishing it from broader drug search 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 sibling tools like kohealth_search_drug or kohealth_get_disease_stats. It does not state whether this should be used for investigating drug interactions or precautions, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative tools.

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