통계 용어 사전

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it queries the Bank of Korea glossary and discloses the ECOS firewall quirk where '/' is replaced by a space. This helps an agent anticipate search behavior for terms containing slashes.

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 well-structured with an intro, examples, a behavioral note, Args, and Returns. It is reasonably compact, though the first two sentences are somewhat redundant—both say the tool searches definitions from the glossary.

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 search tool, the description covers the source, examples, parameter meanings, a behavioral quirk, and the return type ('용어 정의 목록'). It does not detail response fields, but no output schema exists and the tool is straightforward enough that this is a minor gap.

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%, but the description compensates fully by explaining every parameter: 'word' is the term to search, 'start_count' and 'end_count' define the result range with defaults, and 'language' specifies 'kr' or 'en'. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: searching definitions of economic/statistics terms from the Bank of Korea terminology dictionary. It also gives concrete examples like '기준금리' and 'GDP', which makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools that search statistics data or tables.

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 clearly establishes the context: this is a dictionary-lookup tool for term definitions, not a data/table search. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the scope is specific enough that an agent can infer appropriate usage.

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