get_social_funds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the returned content (fund type names, default flag, classification order) and the fixed result count of 6, plus example values. The verb '조회' makes the read-only nature evident. It does not claim to mutate state, so no contradiction. Minor gap: it never explicitly states the operation is safe/stateless, but for a 0-parameter lookup that is low risk.

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 tight sentences, each earning its place: the count and resource in the first line, the returned fields in the second, and concrete examples in the third. No filler or redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return formatting is handled elsewhere. For a 0-parameter lookup tool the description conveys the result count, field set, and example values — effectively everything an agent needs to interpret the result. The only omission is explicit usage context, which is minor for this simple 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which per rubric earns a baseline of 4. Schema coverage is 100% (empty properties object), so there are no undocumented arguments requiring compensation from the description. The description appropriately adds nothing about parameters since none exist.

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?

States a specific verb '조회' (inquiry) plus a bounded resource: '사회공헌 펀드 종류' (social contribution fund types). It further specifies the payload ( items, fields: name/default flag/classification order) and concrete example values ('사랑의 성금', '매칭그랜트', etc.). This clearly separates it from sibling lookup tools like get_social_donations and get_social_volunteer_fields.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. There is no mention of alternative tools or the conditions that would favor get_social_donations or get_social_org instead. The intended context must be fully inferred from the tool name and purpose.

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