list_evaluation_indicators

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as what happens with default parameter values, data freshness, or any limitations. Only mentions that it retrieves a table.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose. It uses a line-break format for parameter examples, which aids readability. However, the structure could be more formalized.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and three parameters, the description explains the main purpose and two parameters but omits behavior when parameters are empty, year ranges, and return format. It is moderately complete but has notable gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description explains org_class and org_subtype with examples and a reference to the sibling tool. It does not explain the year parameter or provide value ranges, partially compensating 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 clearly states the verb '조회합니다' (retrieves) and resource '유형별 평가지표·배점 표' (evaluation indicators/scores table by type). It distinguishes from siblings such as list_evaluation_org_types and get_evaluation_indicator_detail.

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 suggests using list_evaluation_org_types to check types first, providing implicit usage guidance. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions.

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