list_notices

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals that the result includes publication date and full text; it does not explicitly state read-only semantics, pagination behavior, or any prerequisites. '조회' weakly implies a query but is not a clear behavioral guarantee.

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, front-loaded Korean sentence that states the action and scope with no filler. It conveys the essential purpose in one breath.

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 two optional parameters and an output schema, the description should explain how parameters alter the result. It fails to explain include_content and never mentions ordering or pagination. The main gap is the unexplained boolean parameter.

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 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It clarifies course_id as 'all courses or specified course' but says nothing about include_content, which remains ambiguous. The mention of 'full text' might hint at include_content, but doesn't explain the parameter's effect.

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 '조회한다' (retrieves) with a clear resource (notice list) and scope (all or a specified course), and even notes the included fields (publication date, full text). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling 'search_notices', but the listing nature is evident.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus 'search_notices' or other siblings. It neither states when to prefer this tool nor when not to use it, leaving the selection decision entirely to the agent.

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