refresh_catalog

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

Annotations already tell the agent this is a non-read-only, open-world, idempotent operation, and the description adds relevant context about it being a full re-fetch normally automated once per day. It does not disclose side effects such as whether the cached catalog is overwritten or how long the refresh takes, so it adds moderate value beyond the annotations.

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?

A single sentence with zero waste, front-loading the action and the scope, with the frequency nuance tucked into a compact parenthetical.

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 zero-parameter refresh tool with an output schema available, the description covers what is refreshed and how often it normally happens, which is enough to invoke it correctly. A note on cost or when a refresh is warranted would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 a specific verb (다시 받아온다 / re-fetch) plus a precise resource scope (보조금24 전체 목록과 자격조건), so an agent can tell this re-pulls the full catalog and eligibility data. It is distinguishable from data-reading siblings like catalog_status or get_benefit_detail, though it never names them explicitly.

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 parenthetical '(보통은 하루 한 번 자동)' implies the data is refreshed automatically daily, which hints the tool is for forcing an out-of-band refresh, but it never states when an agent should call it versus relying on the cached data or the other catalog tools. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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