get_advance_disclosure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that it returns specific fields and that keyword performs a partial match on disclosure target. However, it does not mention any mutations, error conditions, pagination, or limitations, which is acceptable for a read-only list tool but leaves some gaps.

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: it states the purpose, outputs, usage context, and parameter meaning in just three sentences. It avoids unnecessary detail and front-loads the core 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 low complexity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects. It explains what the tool does and the parameter meaning. It could mention the return shape or how this relates to detail/files siblings, but the output schema presumably covers return values, making this sufficient.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter has no description. The tool description explicitly explains keyword as a partial match filter on 공표대상, adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema. This adequately compensates for the missing schema description.

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 list inquiry for advance disclosures on the homepage and enumerates the provided fields (공표대상, 공표시기, 담당부서 코드). It also indicates use cases for transparency checks or searching items. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling detail/files tools, the purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides context on when to use it (management transparency check, searching specific disclosure items) but does not mention exclusions or alternatives. Sibling tools like get_advance_disclosure_detail and get_advance_disclosure_files exist but are not referenced, so the agent must infer when to choose this over others.

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