get_freight_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the local CSV source and the 861-record scope, and implies a read-only operation, but never explicitly states it's non-destructive, doesn't describe the return format (a flat list vs. nested hierarchy), and doesn't mention pagination beyond the limit parameter 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. The record count (861건) and local CSV source are useful context. Not verbose, though the hierarchical code detail could arguably be moved to a usage note without losing purpose clarity, keeping it compact overall.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover return format, error cases, and parameter semantics more thoroughly. It covers data fields, hierarchy, and empty-query behavior but omits what the response looks like (e.g., a single flat item table), how query matches (prefix, partial, exact), and any edge cases. Adequate for basic usage but not fully complete for a 2-param lookup 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the query parameter's behavior (empty query returns top-level items first) and the hierarchical structure of codes, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. It doesn't fully document the limit parameter semantics though, which is a minor gap given the description clarifies the core query behavior.

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 uses a clear verb+resource pattern (화물 품목정보 조회, freight item info lookup) and specifies the data fields (품목코드·품목명·품목약어명·최저톤수율). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_freight_code and decode_freight_code by being a list/lookup tool rather than a code search/decoder, though it doesn't name those siblings explicitly.

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 explains the empty-query behavior (빈 query시 상위 항목부터 limit 반환) and the hierarchical code structure, giving an agent context on how the query parameter behaves. However, it doesn't contrast with alternative freight-related tools (search_freight_code, decode_freight_code, list_freight_work_lines), so an agent may not know when to pick this over those.

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