get_event_notices

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only says 'retrieves list' and discloses no behaviors like pagination, ordering, recency, or side effects; though read-only is implied, nothing is made explicit.

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, short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately minimal for a no-parameter list retrieval.

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?

Given the zero-parameter complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is basically callable, but it omits any explanation of what an 'event notice' is versus other notice types, and provides no selection context against siblings. A slightly richer note would make it fully complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema already documents this (100% coverage), so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meanings. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is satisfactory.

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 specific verb '조회합니다' (retrieves) and a clear resource '이벤트 공지 목록' (event notice list), so an agent understands what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling notice tools like get_notices or get_update_notices; the sibling differentiation is left to the tool name.

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 tool instead of the many sibling notice tools (e.g., get_notices, get_notice_detail, get_update_notices, get_cashshop_notices). The description provides only a bare statement of function, with no context about event-specific notices or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.