get_library_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'retrieves' which implies read-only, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, output format, rate limits, or any side effects. The tool likely returns a paginated list, but that is not mentioned. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety profile.

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 sentence with no fluff, which is efficient. It is not front-loaded with key details, but for a simple retrieval tool it is appropriately brief. The lack of structure (no bullet points or sections) is acceptable given the minimal content.

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 tool has 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description gives no indication of what the response contains, how to interpret the integrated information, or how pagination works. An agent would be uncertain about the return value and how to use the parameters effectively. This is incomplete for a tool of moderate complexity.

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 every parameter (pageNo, region, libCode, pageSize, dtl_region) has a description in the schema. The tool description adds nothing about parameters, so it does not go beyond the schema. However, the baseline is 3 because the schema already documents parameters adequately; the description's lack of extra information is not penalized further.

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 verb (조회/retrieve) and a resource (도서관별 통합정보/integrated information by library), which is clear enough as a starting point. However, it does not specify what '통합정보' includes, nor does it distinguish itself from siblings like search_libraries, get_library_info, or search_library_codes. It is not a tautology but lacks specificity about the exact data scope.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a library code from search_library_codes, nor does it clarify that this tool is for fetching info by code rather than searching. The schema contains hints (libCode says to search with search_library_codes), but the description itself offers no direction.

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