비급여 항목 검색

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states that it 'queries' and filters by itemKeyword. It omits the critical detail (though present in schema) that itemKeyword filtering is performed client-side after fetching results, which can affect pagination. The source attribution adds context but does not cover this gap.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function and source, with no redundant 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 tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides core purpose but lacks critical operational context such as pagination behavior, output format options (text vs json), and the server vs client-side filtering nuance. While the schema compensates for parameter details, the description alone is not fully complete for an agent to use confidently.

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 no meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it merely repeats that region/type are used and itemKeyword filters. No additional parameter details are given.

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 tool's action ('조회합니다' - searches) and resource ('비급여 진료 항목' - non-payment care items), scoped by region/type. It also mentions additional filtering by itemKeyword and provides the data source, making it distinct from sibling tools like kohealth_get_hospital_nonpayment which is hospital-specific.

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 when searching for non-payment items by region/type and filtering by keyword, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like kohealth_get_hospital_nonpayment. There are no exclusionary statements or named alternative tools.

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