get_union_artifact

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that information is retrieved, which adds little beyond the tool name itself. It does not mention OCID requirements, date semantics, response behavior, or any other operational trait.

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 Korean sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is concise and to the point, though it provides no structured breakdown or additional context.

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 input schema is fully documented and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values or parameters. However, with no annotations and no sibling differentiation in a large family of 42 tools, the overall definition remains only minimally complete for correct 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%, with both 'ocid' and 'date' documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but because the schema already covers parameter semantics, 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 uses a specific verb, '조회합니다' (retrieves), and a clear resource, '유니온 아티팩트 정보' (Union Artifact information). It is clear what the tool acts on, but it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools such as get_union or get_union_raider beyond the resource 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 versus alternatives like get_union, get_union_raider, or the many get_character_* tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context for selection. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and sibling list.

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