get_character_cashitem_equipment

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.