kupid_get_notice_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose that the tool is read-only, nor does it mention any authentication or side effects. While the name implies retrieval, explicit behavioral context is missing.

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: a single Korean sentence stating purpose, then an args list. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence is useful. No wasted words.

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?

Given the low complexity (one required param) and presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains parameter sourcing and tool purpose. However, it lacks guidance on when to choose this over department-specific alternatives and omits error handling or prerequisites.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining the provenance of each parameter (from 'kupid_get_notices' results). This adds significant meaning beyond the type/name in 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 explicitly states the tool retrieves details of KUPID announcements, distinguishing it from 'kupid_get_notices' (listing) and 'kupid_dept_notice_detail' (department-specific). The verb '조회하다' (retrieve) and resource '상세 내용' (details) are clear.

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 explains that notice_id and message_id come from 'kupid_get_notices', providing clear context for use. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus sibling tools like 'kupid_dept_notice_detail', nor does it mention exclusions.

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