find_lowest_price

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuine behavioral trait beyond the name: the result is an integrated ('통합') lowest price aggregated across Danawa and Compuzone, and the operation is implicitly a safe lookup. However, it does not cover staleness/caching, failure or empty-result behavior, or response shape, leaving notable gaps for a tool with zero annotation context.

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 that conveys the object, scope, and outcome without wasted words. The part scope is front-loaded and every element earns its place.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should carry more context, but it omits the return value shape (does the result include a price figure, product ID, link, or source?), how category affects results, and edge-case behavior. For an agent that may need to chain into get_product_detail or get_price_history, knowing what identifier the result carries matters, and that is absent.

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%, so the schema already documents both query and category, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that — it does not explain how to phrase the query or that category narrows/disambiguates the search, so it neither gains nor loses relative to baseline.

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 specific verb ('찾습니다' — finds) and a precise resource: the integrated lowest price across Danawa and Compuzone for a specific part. This is clear and hints at differentiation from siblings by naming the two sources and the '통합 최저가' outcome, but it never explicitly names a sibling it is not (e.g., compare_prices), so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus overlapping siblings such as compare_prices, search_parts, or get_price_history, nor any exclusion conditions. '특정 부품' (specific part) implies a query scenario, but that is a property of the input, not actionable routing guidance.

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