get_social_donations

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the tool provides specific fields and gives usage examples, which implies a read-only inquiry (조회). However, it does not mention pagination/limits or any authorization requirements, and the count (1,053건) is ambiguous as whether it's a total or returned set, leaving some transparency 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 compact and well-structured: a short purpose line, a line on returned fields, an example list, and then parameter definitions. It front-loads the main action and stays free of fluff, making each sentence earn its place.

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?

The description covers all three parameters with semantic detail and provides field names and examples of the returned data. An output schema exists, so return types are already defined. The only omission is pagination/limits and sorting behavior, which are minor given the simplicity of a filtered query 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 has zero description coverage, but the description provides a dedicated parameter block that explains each field's meaning and gives concrete examples (e.g., date format '2025-01-01', keyword '온누리'). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of documentation and adds practical usage guidance.

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?

Purpose is explicit: queries donation spending details ('사랑의 성금' 사용 내역 조회). Verbs and resource are specific, and the tool is clearly distinguished from sibling tools like get_social_funds (funds) and get_social_org (organization) by its focus on expenditure records. The examples (온누리상품권, 해피트레인) make the scope concrete.

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 clear context on what data is returned and includes filter examples, making the use case obvious. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it, though sibling overlap is minimal, so a near-top score is warranted.

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