ecount_get_inventory_by_warehouse_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It reveals a rate limit (10min/1 call), response caching (10min), and details the response structure including fields. It also discloses that omitting prodCodes returns all items. However, it stops short of declaring read-only explicitly, though '조회' implies it.

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 well-organized paragraph with explicit sections for rate limit and response. It is concise and avoids filler, earning a 4.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by listing the response fields. It covers the key parameters, rate limit, and use case. It doesn't mention error conditions or pagination, but for a read-only list tool with this scope, coverage is adequate.

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 already provides full descriptions for all six parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning, mostly restating that baseDate is required and prodCodes can be omitted to query all items, which the schema already says.

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 retrieves multi-item inventory status by warehouse ('창고별 재고현황 다건 조회'), specifying the resource and scope. It notes it queries all warehouses, which distinguishes it from potential single-warehouse or single-item siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 an explicit use case: '전체 창고의 재고 현황을 파악할 때 사용합니다' (used to grasp inventory across all warehouses). It also explains behavior for optional parameters, but does not mention when to prefer sibling tools like get_inventory_by_warehouse.

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