get_character_android_equipment

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.