kupid_dept_notice_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions authentication is not needed, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or idempotent, nor does it disclose any other behavioral aspects like rate limits or side effects. Given the simple read operation, this is adequate but not highly transparent.

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 concise, with a brief purpose statement followed by a note about usage and a clear Args section. It front-loads the purpose and is free of unnecessary words 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?

For a simple detail retrieval tool with an output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains the relationship with kupid_dept_notices and the parameters. It could mention that the output contains detailed content, but since an output schema exists, this omission is acceptable.

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 must explain parameters. It clearly explains that site_name is the key from kupid_dept_notices and article_no is the field from its results. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 retrieves detailed content of department/graduate school notices, with the verb '조회' (retrieve). It distinguishes from siblings like kupid_get_notice_detail by specifying the scope (학과/대학원) and the prerequisite use of kupid_dept_notices.

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 explicitly instructs to first use kupid_dept_notices and provides the parameters from that tool. It also notes authentication is not needed. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the context is clear for a detail retrieval tool.

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