registration_split_registration

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds no additional behavioral context. It does not describe the scope of data returned, potential limitations, or side effects. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description contributes nothing beyond the annotations.

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, short sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though the structure could benefit from additional context without becoming verbose.

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 the tool's simplicity, 3 parameters, and presence of an output schema and annotations, the description provides a minimal but adequate summary. It does not explain return values or typical use cases, but the schema and output schema likely cover these. However, for a complete picture, more context would improve usability.

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 100%, meaning all three parameters are described in the input schema. The description does not add any extra meaning or context about parameters (e.g., clarifying the date format or default behavior). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the full burden.

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' (inquire) and the resource '분할 신고서' (split report), making the tool's purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish it from sibling tools with similar names (e.g., registration_split_decision), lacking specificity that sets it apart.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention required parameters, date range filtering, or any context for use. No exclusions or comparisons are provided.

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