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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool retrieves a list and says nothing about authorization, pagination, filtering, or notice coverage; the output schema can cover return values, but not behaviors like rate limits or data scope.

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, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the action and object with no fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 list tool with an output schema, the description is sufficient for basic invocation. It clearly identifies the resource, and no parameter or return-value details are missing; the only gap is usage differentiation among the sibling notice tools.

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?

There are 0 parameters, so the input schema is fully covered by default and the description has no parameter burden. The baseline for zero-parameter tools applies, and no parameter semantics are needed.

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 verb '조회합니다' with a specific resource '캐시샵 공지 목록', making it clear this retrieves the cash shop notice list. This distinguishes it from sibling notice tools like get_notices, get_update_notices, and get_event_notices by resource type.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus related notice tools. The description simply states what it does and offers no exclusions or alternatives, leaving the selection decision entirely to the agent's inference.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does state that this is a read/query operation ('조회'), implying no side effects. Yet it adds no further behavioral context such as what happens without a date, whether ocid must come from get_character_ocid, or any response-level details. The single verb is adequate but minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to identifying the action and resource. It is concise without being a tautology.

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 a simple read operation with a small parameter set and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it omits usage context, such as how to obtain ocid or how ability differs from related character stat tools. The description is adequate but leaves the large sibling toolset largely undifferentiated.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (ocid and date) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the full explanatory burden.

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 a specific action ('조회합니다' / retrieves) and a specific resource ('캐릭터 어빌리티(내부 능력)' / character ability). This distinguishes it from sibling stat, propensity, and hyper-stat tools at a basic level. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with any named alternative.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_character_stat or get_character_propensity. It mentions no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative conditions. An agent must rely entirely on the tool's name and the schema to infer appropriate usage.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb '조회합니다' signals a read-only lookup, but the description adds no detail about date behavior, prerequisites, or any operational edge cases. It is not misleading, but it is thin.

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 with no filler, clearly stating the action and the subject of the lookup. It is appropriately short and easy to parse, even though it omits contextual guidance.

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 two-parameter read-only endpoint with an output schema, the description is adequate for basic invocation. However, it provides no orientation among the many similar get_character_* tools and relies almost entirely on the tool name for selecting the correct endpoint.

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?

Both parameters are already described in the input schema, including the required ocid and the date format YYYY-MM-DD, giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional meaning about how these parameters affect the lookup, so it stays at the schema-driven baseline.

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 clear lookup verb ('조회합니다') and names a precise resource ('캐릭터 안드로이드 장비 정보'). It is specific enough to distinguish this tool from sibling equipment endpoints such as get_character_item_equipment or get_character_pet_equipment.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this endpoint over alternatives, and no exclusions are stated. The agent must infer from the tool name that this is the Android-equipment lookup rather than the item, cash-item, beauty, or pet equipment endpoint.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly frames the operation as a read-only '조회', which implies no side effects, but it adds little behavioral context beyond the operation itself and the listed output fields. It is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then gives concrete example fields. There is no filler or redundant repetition of the schema.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers the essential scoping. The main gap is not explaining the OCID prerequisite or relationship to get_character_ocid, but this does not make the tool unusable.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description contributes no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource ('character basic information') and an explicit verb ('조회합니다'), and enumerates representative fields: level, job, world, guild, and character image. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_character_stat, though the 'basic' qualifier and field list help distinguish it.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling character tools, and no mention that the OCID should first be obtained from get_character_ocid. An agent is given no routing hints or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does state this is a read-only lookup ('조회합니다') and names the data domain, but it does not mention prerequisites like needing an OCID first, date behavior, or error/rate-limit context.

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, compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and the specific resource category, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 read-only tool with only two parameters and an output schema, the description plus schema is mostly sufficient. It could be improved by explicitly noting the OCID prerequisite and the optionality of date, but these are already visible in the input schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both 'ocid' and 'date'. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, placing it at the baseline of 3.

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 '조회합니다' (retrieves) and identifies the exact resource: character hair/plastic surgery/skin information. This clearly differentiates the tool from the many sibling equipment/character getters, so an agent can select it without inspecting schemas.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_character_item_equipment or get_character_cashitem_equipment. The resource type is inferable from the description, but there is no explicit when-to-use or exclusion statement.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only indicates a read-only lookup and gives no context about optional date handling, historical data availability, error behavior, or rate limits. This is minimal for a tool with zero annotation support.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler text. The verb and object are immediately clear, and every word earns its place.

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 two-parameter getter with an output schema, the description plus schema is mostly sufficient. It does not explicitly explain how to obtain the OCID or clarify the behavioral implications of the optional date, but the schema covers the parameters and the sibling get_character_ocid makes the workflow inferable.

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 documents both parameters with 100% coverage, including the date format and the OCID field. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage applies.

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 clear action ('조회합니다' / retrieves) and a specific resource ('캐시 장비 정보' / cash equipment info), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_character_item_equipment at the resource level. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the core purpose is 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_character_item_equipment or get_character_beauty_equipment. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or the relationship to get_character_ocid, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says '조회합니다' (queries), which implies a read operation, but gives no detail about date sensitivity, behavior when a character has no record, response differences, or any other operational traits. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, though it sacrifices depth in other dimensions.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description omits behavioral context like the role of the optional date parameter, and it does not cross-reference the sibling get_ranking_dojang. For a simple two-parameter read tool this is adequate but leaves clear gaps for an agent selecting among many similar character tools.

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 description coverage is 100%: both ocid and date have descriptions in the input schema. The description itself adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb and resource: '캐릭터 무릉도장 최고 기록을 조회합니다' ('Retrieves the character's best Mu Lung Dojang record'). This clearly identifies what the tool does and is distinguishable from general character info tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_ranking_dojang, so it misses the opportunity for explicit differentiation.

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?

Usage context is implied: an agent would use this to fetch a character's dojang record. But there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_ranking_dojang, nor any mention of the prerequisite of having an OCID (aside from the schema). The guidance is minimal and relies on the agent's inference.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'retrieves information' without disclosing side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or return format. The read-only nature is implied but not stated. This is a minimal disclosure for a tool with zero annotation support.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple retrieval tool, though it could be slightly longer to include usage context without losing efficiency.

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?

Given the tool has only two parameters and an output schema, the description is adequate for basic invocation. However, it lacks usage context, such as how it relates to get_character_hexamatrix_stat, and does not mention any required prior steps (like obtaining an OCID). This makes it incomplete for a tool that is part of a larger character-information suite.

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 description coverage is 100% – both 'ocid' and 'date' are described in the input schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 verb ('조회합니다' = retrieve) and resource ('캐릭터 HEXA매트릭스(6차 스킬)'), clearly identifying the tool's function. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_character_hexamatrix_stat, which likely returns stat-specific data, but the resource name is specific enough to avoid tautology.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., obtaining an OCID via get_character_ocid) or when to prefer this over get_character_hexamatrix_stat. The description only states what it does, not when to call it.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. '조회합니다' clearly signals a read-only lookup, which is useful behavioral information. However, it does not address data availability, authorization, or how the optional date affects behavior, so the transparency is partial.

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 short sentence with the action and resource front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately concise, though its brevity leaves behavioral and usage gaps that are penalized in other dimensions.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema, this is minimally viable: parameter meanings and return shape are available through schema. However, with no annotations and many sibling tools, the description lacks enough behavioral and usage context to fully guide an 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?

The input schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage: 'ocid' and 'date' with format and default. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, such as how date interacts with response recency, so it remains at the schema-covered baseline.

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 the specific verb '조회합니다' and targets '캐릭터 HEXA 스탯 정보', which clearly identifies the resource being retrieved. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_character_hexamatrix or get_character_stat, but the 'HEXA stat' wording reduces ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus get_character_hexamatrix, get_character_hyper_stat, or get_character_stat. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or example scenarios, so an agent must rely on the tool name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb '조회' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose any permissions, rate limits, or edge-case behavior. It is not misleading, but it adds only minimal behavioral context.

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, front-loaded Korean sentence with no redundancy or filler. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's purpose, making it highly efficient.

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 two-parameter retrieval tool with a full output schema, the description combined with the schema is sufficient for invocation once the agent has an OCID. It lacks explicit usage routing and behavioral depth, but the operation is specific enough that the definition is nearly 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 input schema already documents both parameters (ocid and date) with 100% coverage, including the date format. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 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 states exactly what the tool does: '조회합니다' (retrieves) and names the resource '캐릭터 하이퍼스탯 정보' (character hyper stat information). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_character_stat and get_character_hexamatrix_stat, which target different stat categories.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites such as obtaining an OCID first. The only usage signal is implied by the resource name, so an agent receives little help in routing to this tool correctly.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states a read-only lookup ('조회합니다') but provides no additional behavioral context such as date handling, prerequisites, or behavior when no equipment exists. This is not contradictory, but it is minimal.

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 one short sentence with no filler or redundancy, and it is immediately understandable. However, it is so terse that it misses the opportunity to add sibling differentiation, so it is concise but not maximally informative.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema and an output schema exists, so the agent can infer the request shape and response structure. Still, with more than 30 sibling tools and several closely related equipment endpoints, the single sentence does not fully situate when this call is appropriate.

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?

All parameters (ocid, date) already have descriptions in the input schema, giving 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds nothing about parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 clear verb ('조회합니다' = retrieves) and names the resource ('캐릭터 장착 장비 정보' = character equipped equipment information), so an agent can identify what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish this endpoint from sibling equipment tools such as get_character_cashitem_equipment or get_character_symbol_equipment; only the tool name signals 'item equipment.'

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over the many sibling equipment endpoints (cashitem, symbol, beauty, android, pet). The description is a single statement with no conditions, exclusions, or references to alternatives.

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

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys read-only intent via '조회합니다' but discloses nothing else: no mention that the ocid must come from a prior lookup, no date-related default behavior, and no error or response traits. A single sentence stating only what the tool returns is thin for an unannotated tool.

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?

One sentence with zero filler, stated in the most direct form possible. The resource is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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?

An output schema covers return values and the input schema fully documents both parameters, so basic invocation is possible. However, in a large sibling family with near-identical naming, the description provides no differentiation from get_character_skill and no context about where the ocid originates. It is usable but materially incomplete for confident tool selection.

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 description coverage is 100%: ocid is documented as '캐릭터 OCID' and date as '조회 기준일 (YYYY-MM-DD)'. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('조회합니다' / retrieves) and a clear resource ('캐릭터 링크 스킬 정보' / character link skill information). The 'link skill' qualifier separates it from the sibling get_character_skill in meaning, though it does not explicitly name or contrast that sibling. The null title adds no extra signal.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. In a family of roughly 40 get_character_* tools, nothing tells the agent how to choose between this and get_character_skill, and no prerequisite (e.g., obtaining ocid from get_character_ocid first) is mentioned.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states it's a lookup operation ('조회합니다') and that the result is a prerequisite for other lookups, which implies a read-only behavior. However, it doesn't disclose details like whether the character must exist, error behavior for invalid names, or rate limits. The description is adequate but not rich in behavioral context.

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, concise sentence that states the purpose and the key context (needed for other lookups). No wasted words, and the essential information is front-loaded. It earns a high score for efficiency.

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 lookup tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose and the value's role in subsequent calls. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit error/edge-case behavior, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, this is not a significant omission.

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 description coverage is 100% (the only parameter character_name is described as '캐릭터 이름'). The description adds the context that this parameter is used to look up the OCID, which is slightly more than the schema. However, it doesn't add format constraints (e.g., exact name matching, case sensitivity) beyond what the schema provides. 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 clearly states the tool's function: it looks up an OCID (character identifier) by character name, and notes that this value is needed for other character info lookups. It uses a specific verb ('조회합니다') and resource ('OCID'), making the purpose clear. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_guild_id, though the mention that it's needed for other character lookups provides some context.

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 context by stating the OCID is needed for other character information lookups, which suggests when to use this tool (before other character info tools). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The sibling list shows many character-related tools, but the description doesn't explicitly route the agent to them or explain exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. The word '조회합니다' communicates a read-only retrieval operation, but it does not mention authentication needs, date defaulting behavior, or what happens when no pet equipment exists.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the core resource is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise, though it offers no structural detail or additional useful context.

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 two-parameter read endpoint with an output schema, the description plus schema is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks any reference to the required OCID workflow or disambiguation among the closely related equipment endpoints, leaving some context to inference.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both `ocid` and `date` are already documented in the input schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the general resource context, which matches the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 '캐릭터 펫 장비 정보를 조회합니다' (retrieves character pet equipment information), which gives a clear verb and resource. It is specific enough to indicate the pet-equipment scope, but it is essentially a direct restatement of the tool name and adds no further differentiation from the sibling equipment 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as get_character_item_equipment or get_character_cashitem_equipment. It also does not mention prerequisites like obtaining an OCID via get_character_ocid, nor any date-related usage context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb '조회합니다' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but nothing else is disclosed about authentication, rate limits, error behavior, or how the date parameter affects results. This is minimal and leaves most behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple lookup tool, though it does not front-load any extra constraints or context beyond the basic purpose.

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 straightforward lookup with full schema coverage and an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not mention how to obtain the OCID, when the date parameter should be supplied, or how this tool relates to sibling tools like get_character_basic, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both ocid and date already described in the input schema. The description adds no additional semantic value to the parameters, so the baseline score of 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 '캐릭터 인기도를 조회합니다' clearly states a specific verb (조회합니다 = queries) and resource (character popularity), which is unique among the many get_character_* siblings. An agent can immediately tell this tool returns popularity data and not stats, skills, or equipment.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites such as needing an OCID from get_character_ocid, and no exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only (likely), the date semantics beyond basics, error conditions, or what the response looks like. For a read operation, this is a minimal disclosure but not comprehensive.

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 short and to the point, with one sentence that conveys the tool's purpose. However, it lacks any structured format or additional details that might improve scannability; the brevity is acceptable but could be slightly more informative without being verbose.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is arguably adequate for basic invocation. However, the lack of usage guidelines and behavioral transparency (since no annotations exist) means the description alone is incomplete for an agent to fully understand when and how to use it correctly in context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema; it does not clarify the date parameter's valid range or format beyond the schema's YYYY-MM-DD hint. Thus, it meets the baseline of 3.

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 the tool retrieves character propensity information (charisma, charm, etc.) in Korean. It identifies the resource (character propensity) and the action (조회하다), but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_character_popularity' or 'get_character_basic', which may overlap in scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., obtaining an OCID first) or any context for when propensity details are needed. This is a significant gap given the large sibling list.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The verb '조회합니다' (retrieves) makes the read-only nature clear, but the description does not disclose behavior such as how the optional date affects results or whether the data reflects a snapshot at a certain time.

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, front-loaded Korean sentence with no filler or redundancy. Any additional behavior information would be useful, but the phrasing is as concise as possible.

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 read-only lookup with two parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema present, the one-sentence description plus structured data is largely sufficient to invoke correctly. The main missing element is usage guidance, already penalized separately.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented with 'ocid' and 'date (YYYY-MM-DD)'. The description adds no further parameter meaning, which matches the baseline of 3.

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 names a specific operation ('조회합니다' = retrieves) and a specific resource ('캐릭터 적용 세트 효과 정보' = character applied set effect information). This resource is distinct from all sibling get_character_* tools, so it is clear what the tool does.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of other character-information tools, nor any mention of prerequisites such as first resolving an OCID. The intended context must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the operation and parameter mapping. It does not mention that the operation is read-only, how the date parameter affects results, or any auth, rate-limit, or side-effect considerations.

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 short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second clarifies the most cryptic parameter, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

An output schema exists and the input schema documents all parameters, so the essential call details are present. However, for an unannotated tool in a large sibling group, the description lacks usage context and does not explain its relationship to other skill-related endpoints, leaving some selection ambiguity.

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 covers all parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful value by expanding the grade values into human-readable advancement names such as '0=1차' and '6=6차', which the schema alone does not fully convey.

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 '조회합니다' (retrieves) and a specific resource '캐릭터 스킬 정보' (character skill information), so it clearly identifies the tool's core function. It does not explicitly differentiate from related skill-focused siblings like get_character_link_skill or get_character_vmatrix, relying instead on the grade mapping to imply scope.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many siblings in the character information family. It explains the meaning of character_skill_grade values, but never states when to choose this over get_character_link_skill, get_character_hyper_stat, or other related tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb '조회합니다' (retrieve) implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that there are no side effects, does not mention authentication/permission needs, rate limits, or what happens when optional fields are omitted. Minimal behavioral disclosure beyond the literal action.

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?

A single, compact sentence that front-loads the resource ('character comprehensive stats') and the action ('retrieve'), with examples in parentheses. No filler, every word adds value, and it is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool.

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 has an output schema and complete parameter schemas, so the description need not explain return values. However, it fails to mention the prerequisite of obtaining an OCID via get_character_ocid, and given the large sibling set, a sentence about when to choose this aggregate stat endpoint over specialized ones would improve completeness. It is adequate but leaves a few contextual gaps.

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 description coverage is 100% (both 'ocid' and 'date' have descriptions), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides; it does not clarify the meaning of 'date' when null or how to obtain an OCID.

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 verb-resource pair: 'retrieves comprehensive character stats (STR, DEX, combat power, etc.)'. It clearly distinguishes itself from granular sibling tools like get_character_basic, get_character_hyper_stat, and get_character_ability by framing this as the aggregate overview.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many sibling stat-specific tools. The intended usage is implied by the 'comprehensive stats' wording, but there is no stated condition, exclusion, or pointer to alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool queries information, which implies read-only behavior, but it does not disclose requirements (valid OCID, date format constraints), the optionality of the date parameter, or any response characteristics. For a query tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the tool's purpose with no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place, and the key resource type (symbol equipment) is stated up front.

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 lookup tool with a full output schema and 100% parameter schema coverage, the description is mostly sufficient. The main gaps are the lack of usage guidance and behavioral context, but since output schema covers return values and the schema covers parameters, these are minor.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (ocid and date with YYYY-MM-DD format). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 states a specific verb-plus-resource: it retrieves character symbol (Arcane/Authentic) equipment information. The qualifier 'symbol (Arcane/Authentic)' differentiates it from sibling equipment tools like get_character_item_equipment and get_character_cashitem_equipment, though it does not explicitly name any siblings.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_character_item_equipment or get_character_basic. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context signals (e.g., needing an OCID obtained from get_character_ocid first). Usage context is only implied by the tool name.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The word '조회합니다' clearly indicates a read-only lookup, which is useful, but the description does not disclose any further behavioral traits such as date applicability, limitations, or prerequisites.

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, front-loaded Korean sentence with no filler or redundant wording. Every phrase contributes meaningful information about the resource being queried.

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 schema and output schema cover parameter and return expectations, and the purpose is clear. However, the description lacks usage guidance and richer behavioral context, which matters given the large set of sibling character-information tools.

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 documents both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 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 states a specific verb ('조회합니다'), a clear resource ('V매트릭스'), and a clarifying qualifier ('5차 스킬 코어'). This makes the tool's function unambiguous and helps distinguish it from related sibling tools like get_character_hexamatrix.

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 the tool should be used when V Matrix information is needed, but it does not explicitly explain when to use this tool instead of alternatives or when not to use it. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling list.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only says 'retrieves list' and discloses no behaviors like pagination, ordering, recency, or side effects; though read-only is implied, nothing is made explicit.

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, short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately minimal for a no-parameter list retrieval.

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?

Given the zero-parameter complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is basically callable, but it omits any explanation of what an 'event notice' is versus other notice types, and provides no selection context against siblings. A slightly richer note would make it fully 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 takes zero parameters and the schema already documents this (100% coverage), so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meanings. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is satisfactory.

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 verb '조회합니다' (retrieves) and a clear resource '이벤트 공지 목록' (event notice list), so an agent understands what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling notice tools like get_notices or get_update_notices; the sibling differentiation is left to the tool name.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of the many sibling notice tools (e.g., get_notices, get_notice_detail, get_update_notices, get_cashshop_notices). The description provides only a bare statement of function, with no context about event-specific notices or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of conveying behavior. The verb '조회합니다' indicates a read-only lookup, which is helpful, but the description does not disclose any edge behaviors such as rate limits, error conditions, or the meaning of the optional date parameter beyond what the schema already states.

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 compact sentence that immediately communicates the core resource and examples. There is no filler or redundant information; every word earns its place.

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 read-only lookup tool with a fully documented schema and an output schema present, the description is largely sufficient. The main gap is the lack of explicit connection to get_guild_id, which could help agents understand how to obtain the required oguild_id.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both 'oguild_id' and 'date' already documented. The tool description adds no additional meaning or context for the parameters, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 ('조회합니다' = retrieves) and names the resource ('길드 기본 정보' = guild basic info) with examples like members and skills. It is clear enough to identify the tool's function, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools such as get_guild_id.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like get_guild_id or get_ranking_guild. It also does not mention the prerequisite workflow of obtaining oguild_id via get_guild_id before calling this tool. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and description.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly indicates a read-only lookup by guild name and world name returning an identifier, which is the core behavior, but it does not describe not-found behavior or any prerequisites. For a simple lookup, this is minimally adequate.

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 compact sentence stating the operation, the resource, and the two input criteria with no filler or redundancy. All information is front-loaded and earns its place.

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 two-parameter ID lookup with an output schema present, the description covers the essential information. It is slightly incomplete only because it does not explain how this tool relates to get_guild_basic or when the lookup is appropriate as a prerequisite.

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%, with guild_name and world_name already described in the input schema including an example for world_name. The description references both parameters as lookup keys but adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('조회합니다' – retrieves) and names the exact resource being returned (guild identifier oguild_id) along with the two key inputs. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that fetch character or guild detail data rather than a lookup identifier.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_guild_basic, nor does it mention whether this ID is a prerequisite for other guild endpoints. Usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and the sibling list.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic purpose and does not mention pagination behavior, ordering, date semantics, or anything about how count and cursor interact.

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 extremely concise with no filler words. It is slightly underspecified for a paginated history endpoint, but as a single-sentence purpose statement it is efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Output schema and full parameter documentation cover much of the calling context. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, the description alone leaves pagination flow and behavioral expectations under-specified, though it remains minimally viable for a simple history lookup.

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 documents all three parameters with descriptions, giving 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('조회합니다' / retrieves) and a clear resource ('큐브 사용 이력' / cube usage history). It is distinguishable from sibling history tools like get_history_starforce and get_history_potential by the resource named, though it does not explicitly call out 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?

Usage is implied through the resource name: an agent looking for cube usage history can infer this is the right tool. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over sibling history tools or any exclusions.

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

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, but it only states that the tool 'queries' history, implying a read operation. It does not disclose pagination behavior (cursor/next_cursor), rate limits, date-range defaults, or the possibility of an empty response if no potential resets occurred.

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 with no fluff, achieving high conciseness. It could benefit from additional structured context, but that is not required for a high score on this dimension.

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?

Despite rich schema and an output schema, the description is too minimal to be operationally complete. It does not explain how this history differs from starforce or cube history, nor does it mention any prerequisite such as OCID acquisition. The agent is left to rely on the tool name and sibling context rather than explicit guidance.

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 describes all three parameters (date, count, cursor) with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description adds no parameter information beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 states a specific verb ('조회합니다') and a specific resource ('잠재능력 재설정 이력'), making the tool's core function clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling history tools like get_history_starforce or get_history_cube, but the resource name itself provides reasonable distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_history_starforce or get_history_cube. It also does not mention prerequisites like obtaining an OCID from get_character_ocid, which is likely required for character-specific history endpoints.

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

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, but it only says 'retrieves.' It does not mention pagination via cursor, date filtering semantics, authentication requirements, or ordering behavior. The read-only nature is only implicit.

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 compact sentence that communicates the core purpose with no filler. It is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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?

Although the schema is fully described and an output schema exists, the description lacks behavioral context and any prerequisite or workflow guidance. An agent would not know that this is a paginated history lookup or whether a previous OCID lookup is required before calling 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so date, count, and cursor are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, examples, or constraints, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb, '조회합니다' (retrieves), and an unambiguous resource, '스타포스 강화 이력' (Star Force enhancement history). This clearly differentiates it from sibling history tools like get_history_cube and get_history_potential.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites such as an OCID or character context, and no exclusion criteria. The only usage signal is the tool name and the one-line purpose.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It only says '조회' (retrieve/query), which weakly implies a read operation, but it does not disclose any error behavior, authentication needs, rate limits, or relationship to the required notice_id.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence communicates the tool's purpose with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool.

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 and has an output schema, but the description lacks usage routing and behavioral context. An agent could call it correctly with a notice_id, but it is not told how to obtain that ID or when this detail tool should be preferred over the notice-list siblings.

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 already fully documents the single parameter notice_id with type and description, so the description does not need to add much. The baseline of 3 applies because schema coverage is 100% and the description adds no additional parameter context.

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 Korean description '특정 공지사항 상세 내용을 조회합니다' clearly states the action ('retrieve') and the resource ('detailed content of a specific notice'). The words '특정' (specific) and '상세' (detail) distinguish it from sibling list-style tools like get_notices and get_update_notices.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_notices or the other notice-list siblings. It does not mention that a notice_id should first be obtained from a list call, nor does it state when this tool is not appropriate.

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

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 only states that this is a list retrieval operation, with no mention of read-only semantics, pagination, response characteristics, or relationship to the other notice endpoints. The verb '조회합니다' implies reading, but no additional behavioral context is given.

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, compact sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no wasted words or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Although the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the surrounding sibling context reveals a significant gap: get_notices could plausibly overlap with get_update_notices, get_event_notices, get_cashshop_notices, and get_notice_detail. The description does not specify what type of notices are returned or when this general list should be preferred, making selection ambiguous.

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 and the schema coverage is 100% (an empty schema), so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to add about parameters.

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 clear action and resource: '메이플스토리 공지사항 목록을 조회합니다' (retrieves the MapleStory notice list). However, it does not distinguish this general list endpoint from the sibling tools like get_update_notices, get_event_notices, and get_cashshop_notices, so it misses sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_notice_detail exists for individual notices, nor does it clarify whether update/event/cashshop notices are included or should be fetched via their respective sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full behavioral burden and only contributes '조회합니다' (read-only query). It does not mention pagination/default date behavior, whether ocid narrows the result, filtering semantics, rate limits, or access constraints.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the purpose is front-loaded. It is concise, though it achieves this by omitting almost all guidance, so it is not ideal in informational value.

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?

Given the many sibling ranking tools, three optional parameters, and zero annotation coverage, a single sentence is not enough to tell an agent when to invoke this tool and how it behaves. The output schema covers return shape, but selection and behavioral context are missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, with date, ocid, and page already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clear action ('조회합니다' – queries/retrieves) and a specific resource ('업적 랭킹' – achievement ranking), so the core purpose is immediately understandable. It is still a minimal paraphrase of the tool name and does not explicitly contrast it with the many sibling ranking endpoints.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is present. The description only says that rankings are queried and never states when get_ranking_achievement should be preferred over get_ranking_overall, get_ranking_union, get_ranking_guild, etc., nor what selection criteria apply.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states only that the tool queries rankings, implying a read operation, but does not disclose pagination behavior, filtering semantics, rate limits, or any quirks. For a tool with five optional parameters and multiple filtering options, this is insufficient.

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 consists of a single clear sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately concise for a simple query tool, though it does not front-load any distinguishing information beyond the resource name. No fluff exists, but it is also not rich in guidance.

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?

Despite having an output schema and full parameter schema coverage, the description fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to correctly use the tool. It does not mention typical use cases (e.g., querying a specific character's dojang record vs. overall rankings), how date filtering works, or any prerequisites. For a tool with multiple optional filters and many siblings, this is incomplete.

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 provides 100% description coverage for all five parameters (date, ocid, page, class_, world_name), so the schema already documents their meaning. The description adds no additional insight into how these parameters interact or are formatted. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, a score of 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 '무릉도장 랭킹을 조회합니다' clearly states the action (조회 - query) and resource (무릉도장 랭킹 - Mu Lung Dojo ranking). It distinguishes from sibling ranking tools by name and the specific ranking type, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_ranking_overall. The purpose is specific and 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling ranking tools (overall, union, guild, theseed, achievement). It only states what it does, not the context or conditions that would lead an agent to select it. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool retrieves guild rankings, which implies a read operation, but it doesn't disclose pagination behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens when parameters are omitted. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 with no wasted words, which is appropriately concise. However, it may be too terse to be fully useful, but for a simple read operation, it's acceptable. It's front-loaded with the purpose and doesn't include 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?

Given the 5 optional parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description lacks context on how to use the tool effectively. It doesn't explain the relationship between parameters (e.g., whether world_name is required, or what happens if only date is given), nor does it mention any constraints or prerequisites. The schema covers parameter meanings, but the description adds no operational guidance, making the tool under-specified for an agent to call correctly.

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% as each parameter has a description (e.g., '조회 기준일 (YYYY-MM-DD)' for date, '랭킹 타입 (0: 주간, 1: 플래그, 2: 지하수로)' for ranking_type). The tool description adds no additional parameter context, but the schema already provides complete definitions, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Retrieves guild ranking.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the name 'get_ranking_guild' differentiates it from sibling tools like 'get_ranking_overall' or 'get_ranking_union'. An agent can immediately understand this tool is for guild rankings specifically.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is for guild rankings specifically, or that other ranking tools exist. There's no mention of context like needing a specific world or date, or that it's a read-only operation. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation and gives no information about pagination, default date behavior, filter interactions, or what the response contains.

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 short sentence with no filler, and it is front-loaded with the core action. However, it is so terse that it adds little beyond the tool name itself.

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?

Given the six optional parameters and the large family of sibling ranking tools, this description is too minimal. It omits when to select this tool over alternatives and how the optional filters affect the query.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters already have meaningful descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level value, so the baseline of 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 clearly identifies the operation ('조회합니다' / 'retrieves') and the resource ('종합 랭킹' / 'overall ranking'). The word 'overall' helps distinguish it from sibling ranking tools, though it does not explain what the overall ranking contains.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling ranking tools like get_ranking_union, get_ranking_guild, or get_ranking_dojang. Usage must be inferred solely from the tool name and the word 'overall'.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, but it only says 'retrieves/views' and reveals nothing about pagination, date handling, authentication, or response behavior. The input and output schemas mitigate this somewhat, but the description itself adds no behavioral context beyond a read operation.

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 efficient sentence with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded and concise, though so minimal that it provides no structural cues beyond the core purpose.

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 query tool, the schema fully documents parameters and an output schema exists, so basic invocation is possible. However, with no annotations, no usage guidelines, and no explanation of how this ranking tool relates to siblings, the overall context is thin.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter semantics, but the input schema already explains date, ocid, page, and world_name, so an agent can understand all four optional parameters.

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 clear verb ('조회합니다' / retrieves) and a specific resource ('더 시드 랭킹' / The Seed ranking). It does not explain what distinguishes The Seed from sibling ranking tools, but the resource name is specific enough to identify the tool's target.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among the many ranking siblings. An agent would have to infer the right tool from the resource name alone and cannot rule out other ranking tools based on the text.

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

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 only says 'queries' which implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state that, nor does it mention pagination behavior, rate limits, or any side effects. For a simple query tool, this is minimal but not misleading.

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 short sentence, which is concise but arguably too minimal. It lacks structure such as usage context or notes about the result format. It is not verbose, but it does not earn its place by adding value beyond the name and schema.

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?

Although an output schema exists and the tool is relatively simple, the description does not explain what 'union ranking' means or how it differs from other ranking endpoints. Given the large number of sibling ranking tools, an agent would benefit from clarification on when this specific tool is relevant. The description is incomplete for the context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents each parameter (date, ocid, page, world_name) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not enhance understanding.

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 clear verb and resource: '유니온 랭킹을 조회합니다' (queries union ranking). This is specific and unambiguous about what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate from sibling ranking tools like get_ranking_overall or get_ranking_guild, so an agent might confuse which ranking to use.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many ranking-related siblings. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent is left to infer that this tool is for 'union' ranking specifically, but no criteria or alternatives are given.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 조회 implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose prerequisites, edge cases, or date-related behavior such as what happens when date is omitted. This is acceptable for a simple lookup, though minimal.

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?

A single concise sentence that states the operation and resource without filler, tautology, or duplication of schema 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?

The definition is adequate for a simple lookup with full schema coverage and an output schema, but it leaves the agent to infer when to choose this tool over get_union_raider or get_union_artifact. Adding one sentence of sibling differentiation would make it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents ocid and date. The tool description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; the baseline of 3 applies.

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, 조회합니다 ('queries/retrieves'), and names the exact resource: union level and grade information. This is sufficiently distinct from the sibling tools get_union_raider and get_union_artifact, which target different union sub-resources.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus related union tools such as get_union_raider or get_union_artifact. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions stated.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that information is retrieved, which adds little beyond the tool name itself. It does not mention OCID requirements, date semantics, response behavior, or any other operational trait.

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 short Korean sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is concise and to the point, though it provides no structured breakdown or additional context.

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 input schema is fully documented and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values or parameters. However, with no annotations and no sibling differentiation in a large family of 42 tools, the overall definition remains only minimally complete for correct tool selection.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both 'ocid' and 'date' documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but because the schema already covers parameter semantics, the baseline score of 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, '조회합니다' (retrieves), and a clear resource, '유니온 아티팩트 정보' (Union Artifact information). It is clear what the tool acts on, but it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools such as get_union or get_union_raider beyond the resource name.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_union, get_union_raider, or the many get_character_* tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context for selection. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and sibling list.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation via '조회합니다' but does not disclose other behavior such as whether the date parameter affects results, whether valid OCID is required, or any rate limits. The single sentence adds little beyond the function's basic purpose.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 low-complexity (2 parameters, no nesting) and has a complete input schema plus an output schema, so little extra is required. However, the description lacks any context about how this endpoint relates to sibling union tools, and the optional date behavior is unexplained, leaving moderate ambiguity for an AI 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 description coverage is 100% because both 'date' and 'ocid' have descriptive comments. The description itself adds no additional semantic meaning to the parameters, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 verb ('조회합니다' - retrieves) and a specific resource ('유니온 공격대 배치 및 효과 정보' - Union Raider deployment and effect info), clearly indicating what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with sibling tools like get_union or get_union_artifact, so it relies on the resource name for differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer get_union_raider over get_union or get_union_artifact, nor any prerequisites beyond the required ocid parameter.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. Saying it 'retrieves' a list signals a read-only operation, but the description provides no details about pagination, response ordering, or operational constraints, relying on the output schema to fill those gaps.

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?

A single sentence that immediately states the action and resource with no filler. For a zero-parameter list tool, this is an appropriately sized and front-loaded description.

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, parameterless list operation with an output schema, the description is largely complete. It only lacks explicit comparison to sibling notice tools, which is already reflected in the usage guidelines score.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. This meets the zero-parameter baseline, and the description correctly implies that no inputs are required.

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 ('조회합니다') and states the resource ('업데이트 공지 목록'). The 'update' qualifier differentiates it from similar notice tools among the siblings, though it does not explicitly define how update notices differ from general, event, or cash shop notices.

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?

No guidance is provided for when to use get_update_notices versus get_notices, get_event_notices, get_cashshop_notices, or get_notice_detail. The correct choice must be inferred from the tool name rather than from any explicit condition or alternative.

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