get_book_usage_analysis

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('retrieves') but does not specify whether the operation is read-only, what data is returned, or any side effects. The term '조회' implies a read operation, but this is not explicit, and the description omits details like response format or potential limitations.

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, grammatically complete sentence with zero redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and subject, making it highly efficient and readable.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain what constitutes 'usage analysis' (e.g., metrics, time range), any required context, or the nature of the return value. An agent would not know what to expect from the tool or how to interpret results, leaving critical 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?

The schema already fully describes isbn13 as a 10- or 13-digit ISBN with a regex pattern (100% coverage). The description adds the contextual nuance that the analysis is 'per book,' linking the parameter to the tool's purpose. This slight addition justifies the baseline of 3, but no further semantic enhancement is provided.

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 ('조회합니다' – retrieve) and resource ('도서별 이용 분석' – usage analysis by book). This clearly indicates the tool's function and differentiates it from a general search or detail tool. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_usage_trend or get_reading_quantity, leaving potential ambiguity about which analysis is provided.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. An agent must infer from the name alone, which is insufficient given multiple sibling tools covering similar domains.

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