correction_factors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool retrieves correction factors; it does not mention response format, result structure, scope limitations, or any side effects. This is minimal and leaves important behavioral context undisclosed.

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 short, clear sentence in Korean that front-loads the core purpose. There is no redundant wording, and every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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 is simple with only two well-documented parameters, but there is no output schema and no description of the return value or how the retrieved correction factors are presented. For an agent to confidently use the result, some additional context about output shape or behavior would be beneficial.

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 100%, with both deviceId and applyMonth already documented in the schema. The description adds little semantic value beyond 'specific application month,' so the schema carries the parameter-documentation burden and the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action and resource: it retrieves correction factors used in a specific application month. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling correction-related tools such as correction_trend, correction_compare, or correction_versions, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus the many sibling correction tools. There is no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer appropriateness from the tool name and description alone.

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