get_oil_market_daily

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states it is a query (조회) with no details about return format, error conditions, data limits, or any other behavioral traits. This is minimal and leaves the agent uncertain about what to expect.

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 plus a parameter line, extremely concise and directly to the point. Every word is purposeful, with no redundant information.

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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. The given information is sufficient to know what the tool does and how to supply the date, though it omits any extra context about the oil market scope or data specifics, which could be a minor gap.

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 schema has zero description for basDd, but the description provides the meaning (기준일자) and format (YYYYMMDD), which adds value beyond the schema. This compensates for the schema's lack of coverage.

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 tool retrieves daily trading information for the oil market (석유시장 일별매매정보), with a specific verb (조회) and resource. The sibling list shows similar tools for other markets, so the resource name distinguishes it clearly.

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 implies usage via the name and description but does not explicitly state when to use this tool or compare it to alternatives. No when-not-to-use or alternative references are provided; however, sibling names make the differentiation obvious.

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