get_advance_disclosure_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful behavior: keyword does partial-match filtering on title, dept_code does exact-match filtering, and the result includes title, department code, and view count. However, it does not disclose what happens when both filters are omitted, whether there is pagination, or any response-size/error behavior.

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 and front-loaded: the purpose appears first, then the returned fields, then the parameter semantics. Every line earns its place and there is no padding.

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 two-parameter lookup with an output schema, this is mostly complete: it explains what the tool returns and what each parameter does. The main missing context is a clear statement of how this detail tool differs from its advance-disclosure siblings, which is relevant given the large sibling list.

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%, so the description must add meaning to the two parameters. It does: keyword is explained as a title partial-match filter and dept_code as a department-code exact-match filter. This goes well beyond the bare schema, though it does not specify the expected dept_code format or whether filters combine with AND logic.

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 states a specific resource (홈페이지 사전정보공표 세부 내역) and a query action (조회), and lists the returned fields. It is clear enough on its own, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely related siblings get_advance_disclosure and get_advance_disclosure_files beyond the word 'detail'.

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 gives no guidance about when to choose this tool over get_advance_disclosure or get_advance_disclosure_files. It describes the available filters but not the intended scenario or how this detail-level query relates to the sibling list/file disclosure tools.

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