report_list

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

The verb '조회한다' indicates a read-only operation, and the parenthetical describes returned fields. However, with no annotations, the description does not disclose whether authentication or a selected site is required, nor any ordering or pagination behavior, leaving some behavioral traits undocumented.

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 compact sentence that states the operation and the relevant output fields without filler. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter list tool.

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?

For a simple zero-parameter listing tool, the description covers the operation and output fields. However, the sibling set includes login and site-selection tools, suggesting session context may be a prerequisite, and the description does not mention authentication, scope, or ordering, which leaves a minor completeness gap.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema-description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful output-field context but there are no parameters for it to explain.

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 a specific verb ('조회한다') and a clear resource ('리포트 발행 이력'), and lists the fields returned. It is clearly a report-history listing operation, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as report_get or report_months.

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 instead of alternatives like report_get or report_months. Prerequisites such as login or site selection are also not mentioned, so the agent must infer usage purely from the name and sibling context.

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