NIP 백신 일정 전체

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 adds that this is reference information, not a diagnostic tool, and recommends pediatric consultation—valuable context beyond a simple 'returns schedule'. As a read-only, zero-parameter operation, it adequately discloses the informational nature without overstating.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by an essential caveat. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema fields.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what is returned (the full NIP schedule), its purpose (reference), and an important boundary (not diagnostic). It could specify the output format more concretely, but the simplicity of the tool and the disclaimer make the description adequately complete.

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 baseline is 4. No parameter descriptions are needed. The description confirms that the tool returns the full schedule without requiring input, which is consistent with the empty input schema.

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 action ('returns the entire NIP standard schedule') with a clear resource and scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_due_vaccines (which likely returns personalized due vaccines) and list_checkups (which lists checkups, not vaccines), making its purpose unambiguous.

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: it is reference information, not a diagnosis, and advises consulting a pediatrician. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_due_vaccines or compute_growth_percentile, leaving the differentiation to implication rather than explicit guidance.

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