query_assembly

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that authentication is automatic, pagination is handled via page/page_size, and the response structure is detailed (rows, count, total_count, has_more, raw_response). However, it does not explicitly mention idempotency, safety, error handling, or rate limits, which would strengthen transparency.

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 structured with clear sections (purpose, usage, workflow, authentication, common params, args, returns) and is front-loaded with the purpose. It is somewhat lengthy due to bilingual content, but every sentence is valuable. Could be slightly more concise but overall well-organized.

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 role as a universal fallback and the existence of an output schema, the description provides thorough coverage: explains response fields (endpoint, rows, count, etc.), when to use raw_response, pagination, and automatic handling of certain params. It is complete for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly.

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 all four parameters: endpoint_code (with example and reference), params (with auto-handled fields), page (default 1), and page_size (default 10, max 100). This adds significant meaning beyond the 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 it is a universal fallback to call any open.assembly.go.kr API endpoint directly, and specifies when to use it: when no dedicated MCP tool exists. The verb 'call any ... API endpoint directly' is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use when no dedicated MCP tool exists for the data you need.' A typical workflow is shown (discover_apis then query_assembly), and it warns not to pass KEY in params, explains common parameters, and mentions pagination. This leaves no ambiguity about when to use this tool.

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