kupid_get_scholarship_detail

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, error handling, or permissions. It only explains the parameters, leaving the agent without important behavioral context.

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, consisting of a one-sentence purpose and a parameter list. It is front-loaded with the verb. Slight improvement could be made with clearer separation, but it's efficient.

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 existence of an output schema, the description need not explain return values. However, with no annotations and low behavioral transparency, the description is incomplete. It adequately covers parameter semantics but lacks broader context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining that scholarship_id and message_id come from the output of kupid_get_scholarships. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's titles and types.

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 action ('조회합니다' - retrieves) and the resource ('KUPID 장학공지의 상세 내용' - scholarship notice detail). It references sibling tool kupid_get_scholarships for parameter context, but does not explicitly differentiate from other detail tools like kupid_get_notice_detail.

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 implicitly guides usage by linking parameters to the output of kupid_get_scholarships. It provides clear context but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools.

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