통계표 세부항목

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by explaining pagination behavior (has_more=true means increase start_count) and the language parameter, which are not available from annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 compact, front-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence, and uses a structured Args/Returns layout. Every element—purpose, parameter semantics, pagination hint—has a purpose, with no filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description discloses the shape of the result (a list of 세부항목) and the pagination contract, while all four parameters are documented. For a simple read-only listing tool, nothing needed for a correct first call is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden and succeeds: it explains stat_code is mandatory and where to obtain it, provides defaults for start_count/end_count, and lists the accepted values for language ('kr' or 'en'). This goes beyond the schema's bare types and defaults.

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') and a precise resource: the detailed items of a particular statistical table, listing the fields returned (항목코드, 지원 주기, 수록 기간, 단위). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the scope is unambiguous and it references search_statistic_tables as the source of the required stat_code.

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 Args section gives clear context: stat_code is required and must come from search_statistic_tables, and start_count/end_count control pagination. It does not state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools for the same purpose, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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