100대 주요 경제지표

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minor behavioral details such as the sample key being limited to 10 items and default language behavior, but it does not disclose the return response structure or pagination semantics. These additions are useful but not extensive.

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 concise and well-structured, with a one-line summary, a brief list of example indicators, and clearly separated Args and Returns sections. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no redundant sentences.

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 tool, the description explains parameters and indicates a list return, but it does not detail the exact fields of each indicator or any error handling. Given there is no output schema, the description could be more explicit about the response structure, but the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage partially compensate.

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 0%, so the description bears the full burden of explaining parameters. It clearly describes start_count (start order), end_count (end order), and language options (kr/en), including defaults and the automatic limit of 10 for sample keys. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema fields.

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 clearly states the tool queries the top 100 key economic indicators, listing specific examples like GDP growth, base rate, CPI, unemployment, and M1/M2 money supply. It distinguishes itself from siblings (e.g., search_statistics) because it provides a pre-defined curated list, not a search function.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or conditions for preferring this tool over search_statistics or get_popular_statistic. The agent is left to infer usage context.

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