get_union_raider

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation via '조회합니다' but does not disclose other behavior such as whether the date parameter affects results, whether valid OCID is required, or any rate limits. The single sentence adds little beyond the function's basic purpose.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 tool is low-complexity (2 parameters, no nesting) and has a complete input schema plus an output schema, so little extra is required. However, the description lacks any context about how this endpoint relates to sibling union tools, and the optional date behavior is unexplained, leaving moderate ambiguity for an AI agent.

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% because both 'date' and 'ocid' have descriptive comments. The description itself adds no additional semantic meaning to the parameters, so the baseline score 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 states a specific verb ('조회합니다' - retrieves) and a specific resource ('유니온 공격대 배치 및 효과 정보' - Union Raider deployment and effect info), clearly indicating what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with sibling tools like get_union or get_union_artifact, so it relies on the resource name for differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer get_union_raider over get_union or get_union_artifact, nor any prerequisites beyond the required ocid parameter.

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