국가 인도적·보건 문서 컨텍스트

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it returns source status, counts, and sample, which is helpful but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like authentication needs or rate limits. With annotations covering core safety, the description adds moderate value.

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 a single sentence that conveys the main function. It is efficient but the mix of Korean and English may reduce clarity. It could be slightly more structured but is not overly verbose.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters and an output schema, but the description does not explain the output format or how the parameters interact. The output schema exists, which reduces the burden, but the description still lacks details about the return values and the meaning of 'source status, counts, sample' in 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?

Schema description coverage is only 25%, with only the 'fields' parameter having a description. The tool description does not explain the semantics of 'refresh', 'sampleSize', or 'countryCode' beyond what the schema provides. For a low-coverage schema, the description should compensate but does not.

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 returns structured observations and document metadata from multiple sources (HDX HAPI, UNHCR, WHO GHO, ReliefWeb, World Bank) with a focus on source status, counts, and sample. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like country_hazard_snapshot or country_report_context, which may also return humanitarian context data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of usage context makes it harder for an AI agent to select the appropriate tool.

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