List Exam Sources

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

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true), but the description adds a real behavioral detail they do not: refresh=true reaches out to the central university (중앙대) list and rewrites the department candidates. That side effect is worth knowing before passing refresh=true, though there is no mention of cost/rate limits or how the refreshed list is persisted.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the conditional flag behavior immediately after. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Purpose and the single parameter's effect are both covered; the only gap is that the [로컬/네트워크] tag is not unpacked for the agent.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already described, so baseline would be 3. The description goes slightly further by explaining what refresh actually re-fetches and from where (단과대 후보 from 중앙대 목록), adding meaning beyond the schema's generic "다시 탐색".

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 gives a specific verb+resource ("시험 공지 소스 목록을 조회합니다" = retrieve the list of exam notice sources) plus a scope tag ([로컬/네트워크]). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like eclass_sync_exam_schedules or eclass_get_exam_schedule, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 conditional "refresh=true면 ... 갱신합니다" tells the agent what the flag does but not when to choose this tool over eclass_get_exam_schedule or eclass_sync_exam_schedules. Usage is implied by the purpose rather than stated as when/when-not guidance.

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