get_character_set_effect

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.