promises

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the key nuance that these are '근사치' (approximate) values and mentions the eligible-status filter, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 two concise, front-loaded sentences with no redundancy. It immediately states the core query and the primary filter option, making efficient use of space.

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?

While the description covers the basic purpose and one usage scenario, it leaves several parameters unexplained and does not define the domain-specific fields (F-T-P, S-Eff, delta-Coh). The output schema exists, but the agent lacks enough context to choose parameter values with confidence.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only hints at the 'status' parameter (eligible status filtering) and ignores the other four (sort, as_of, max_chars, response_format). The agent cannot infer the intended values from the description alone.

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' (queries), the resource '복선의 F-T-P, 상태, 부채, S-Eff, delta-Coh 근사치' (foreshadowing's approximations), and adds a filtering condition. It specifies a unique scope that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get' or 'query'.

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 a clear usage context: '집필 전에' (before writing) and the ability to filter eligible status. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or conditions for when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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