의약품 효능·용법·주의·부작용 검색

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states the tool searches and lists the types of information returned, implying a read-only query. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, output format differences, or any potential access limitations. The schema covers pagination format, so the description adds only partial behavioral context.

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, focused sentence that conveys the tool's purpose, target audience, search keys, information fields, and data source. Every word earns its place; no unnecessary detail or repetition.

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 description explains what the tool does, what data fields are returned, and the data source, which is sufficient for a search tool without an output schema. Pagination and format are documented in the schema, so the description does not need to repeat them. Minor lack of explicit notes on result handling but overall 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?

The schema provides descriptions for all six parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description mentions the search keys (제품명/업체명/효능 키워드) which map to itemName, entpName, and efcyQuery, but this is redundant with the schema. The mention of returned fields adds output context, but not parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema.

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 uses the specific verb '검색합니다' (search) and clearly names the resource: 일반인용 의약품 정보 (consumer drug information), with explicit fields (효능, 사용법, 주의사항, 부작용, 보관법). It differentiates from siblings like kohealth_search_hospital or kohealth_get_drug_dur by focusing on general consumer drug information and citing the official source.

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 implies usage for searching consumer drug info by product/company/efficacy keyword, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like kohealth_get_drug_dur (for drug utilization review) or kohealth_search_hospital. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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