monitor_rose

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only conveys read-only intent via '조회한다' and does not disclose response behavior, aggregation semantics, output contents, or constraints.

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?

A single Korean sentence states the action and defines the term '오염장미도' with the parenthetical '풍향별 농도 분포'. It is compact, front-loaded, and contains no filler.

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 low complexity and clear schema make the one-sentence description minimally adequate. However, without an output schema or annotations, the returned data shape and any usage conditions remain unspecified, and the relationship to monitor_rose_search is not addressed.

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%; the only parameter period is documented in the schema with its enum values and '집계 구간' meaning. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so 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 uses an explicit verb '조회한다' and identifies the resource as '오염장미도(풍향별 농도 분포) 데이터', making the core function clear. However, the nearby sibling monitor_rose_search implies a similar lookup role, and the description does not explicitly disambiguate the two.

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 given about when to use this tool versus monitor_rose_search or other monitor_* siblings. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.

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