get_union

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 조회 implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose prerequisites, edge cases, or date-related behavior such as what happens when date is omitted. This is acceptable for a simple lookup, though minimal.

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?

A single concise sentence that states the operation and resource without filler, tautology, or duplication of schema information.

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?

The definition is adequate for a simple lookup with full schema coverage and an output schema, but it leaves the agent to infer when to choose this tool over get_union_raider or get_union_artifact. Adding one sentence of sibling differentiation would make it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents ocid and date. The tool description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; the baseline of 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 ('queries/retrieves'), and names the exact resource: union level and grade information. This is sufficiently distinct from the sibling tools get_union_raider and get_union_artifact, which target different union sub-resources.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus related union tools such as get_union_raider or get_union_artifact. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions stated.

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