get_dormitory_longterm_codes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the operation is an inquiry ('조회'), that there are 15 records, and that the codes are categorized with specific fields. This is sufficient for a simple read-only lookup, though it does not state behavior when group is empty.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose within the first line, and uses a clear bullet-style parameter explanation. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 single-optional-parameter code lookup, the description covers the essential context: purpose, result count, output semantics, and how to apply the filter. The output schema is present, so return format need not be re-explicated. A small gap is not clarifying what happens when group is omitted, but the schema default already suggests empty means unfiltered.

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 has only a parameter title and no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining 'group' as a code group filter with concrete examples ('장기', '기타'), adding meaning beyond the raw schema. It does not exhaustively list valid values, but enough information is provided.

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?

Description states a precise verb and resource: 조회 (retrieval) of employee dormitory long-term reservation reason codes. It goes beyond a simple label by specifying the output shape (group/value/name) and the distinction between '장기' and '기타', making the tool's function unmistakable.

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 implies when to use this tool: when querying reason codes for long-term dormitory reservations. It provides a group filter with examples but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions; however, the domain is specific enough that no ambiguity remains.

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