get_character_link_skill

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.