다음 영유아 건강검진 조회

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the tool provides reference information and not a diagnosis, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention the return format or how the optional 'today' parameter influences the calculation, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 only two sentences, with the first sentence stating the main purpose and the second adding an essential disclaimer. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the key function.

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 is simple, but without an output schema or annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns and any limitations. It does not describe the result format or the effect of the 'today' parameter, though the schema covers parameter meanings. This is a noticeable gap for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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 input schema already has 100% description coverage for both parameters, clearly explaining the meaning and default of 'today'. The description adds no new parameter-level information beyond saying the calculation is based on birth date, which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb '계산합니다' (calculates) and clearly identifies the resource as the infant health checkup schedule, limiting to '현재/다음' (current/next). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_checkups or get_due_vaccines, which have different purposes.

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 context for the tool's use (calculating checkup timing) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention sibling tools like list_checkups. The disclaimer about consulting a pediatrician is a limitation, not a usage guideline.

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