영유아 건강검진 8회 전체

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

Without annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does so by clarifying the information is for reference only and not a diagnosis, which sets expectations appropriately for a read-only listing tool. It does not elaborate on return format, but for a zero-parameter tool this is acceptable.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence and a relevant medical disclaimer in the second. There is no redundant information or padding.

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 simple zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains its function and caveats. It does not explicitly list the exact age ranges or contents of the 8 sessions, but this is a minor gap given the low 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema fully covers everything (100% coverage). The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameter semantics to describe, and the description need not add anything.

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 it returns the entire national infant/child health checkup schedule (8 sessions). The verb '반환합니다' specifies the action, and '전체' (full) differentiates from get_next_checkup which returns only the next one. The resource is distinct from vaccine or growth tools.

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 disclaimer that it is reference information, not a diagnosis, and advises consulting a pediatrician. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus sibling tools like list_vaccine_schedule or get_next_checkup, leaving the comparison implied by the resource name. This is adequate context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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