get_info_disclosure_dept

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. '조회' indicates a read operation and the description lists output fields, but it does not disclose any potential side effects, error behavior, or special constraints beyond the keyword filter. For a simple list retrieval this is acceptable but not thorough.

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, completing its message in three short lines. It front-loads the purpose and fields, then explains the keyword. No filler or redundant 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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and an output schema (which defines the return structure), the description covers purpose, returned fields, and parameter behavior. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 explicitly explains the sole parameter 'keyword' as a partial-match filter on department name (부서명 부분일치 필터), adding meaning beyond the schema's bare definition. This is clear and sufficient.

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 the verb (조회/retrieve) and resource (정보공개 담당 부서 목록/list of information disclosure departments), and lists the specific fields returned (부서코드, 부서명, 상위부서명). This distinguishes it from sibling department-list tools like get_consultation_departments and get_homepage_dept by its specific scope.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or context. The description only states what it does and the keyword filter; an agent has to infer when it would be appropriate compared to other department or lookup tools.

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