get_character_popularity

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.