get_qna

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns the full text body and performs a single lookup, which implies a read operation. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error handling, or any prerequisites such as authentication. It adds some context but misses potential behavioral details.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. It avoids unnecessary detail while conveying the essential purpose.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description plus parameter guidance is largely complete. It clarifies the return type (full text) and source of the document number. However, it could have mentioned error behavior or output structure, but these are not critical for such a simple tool.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, but the parameter description goes further by giving an example format and instructions to reuse docNumber from search_qna or faqDocNumbers from get_paragraph results. This adds practical guidance beyond the schema, earning above-baseline score.

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 retrieves a single Q&A detail record (full text) by document number. The verb '조회' (retrieve) and resource '질의응답 상세' distinguish it from siblings like search_qna (search) and get_paragraph (paragraph retrieval).

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?

While the main description does not explicitly mention alternatives, the parameter schema provides strong usage guidance: it tells the agent to use docNumber from search_qna results or faqDocNumbers from get_paragraph results. This implies when to use the tool (after a search or paragraph retrieval) and gives a clear trigger context, though it lacks explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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