preview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: no application or file saving, the API key is sent in X-DataGoKr-Key header, and the return includes access instructions if not authorized. These details go beyond the annotation and are not contradicted by 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 bilingual, repeating the same content in Korean and English. While structured with '반환 / Returns' and clear notes, the duplication adds length without adding informational value. It is not overly long, but the bilingual redundancy could be streamlined to a single language.

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 description covers the return format (access_kind, data.columns/rows, total or access instructions) and mentions the key header behavior. With an output schema available, it does not need to detail the exact response structure. It lacks explicit error handling or pagination notes, but for a preview tool with annotations and output schema, it is sufficiently complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meanings. It mentions 'up to 20 rows' which hints that 'n' controls the row count, but it does not explicitly explain 'dataset_id' or the exact role of 'n'. The mapping is left to inference, making this a weak compensation for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states a clear verb (preview) and resource (remote server's first rows and access instructions). It specifies a row limit of 20, which distinguishes it from generic 'fetch' or 'get'. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling tool or contrast with alternatives, so it misses the highest bar for differentiation.

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 does not provide any when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It does not mention alternatives like 'show' or 'fetch', nor does it indicate scenarios where preview would be preferred over other tools. The usage context is only implied by the word 'preview'.

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