get_social_volunteer_fields

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that exactly 7 records are returned, what fields are included, and how keyword filtering behaves. It does not mention auth, empty-keyword behavior, or side effects, but for a simple code lookup these are minor 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: purpose/count, output fields with examples, then parameter behavior. Every line adds value, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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 simple optional-keyword code list with an output schema and a default value in the input schema, the description covers both invocation and result content adequately. Nothing material is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 fully compensate. It clearly defines keyword as a 분야명 partial-match filter and provides concrete examples (헌혈, 환경, 해피), which is sufficient for the single optional parameter.

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 opens with a clear statement that this tool retrieves social contribution volunteer field codes and lists the exact returned fields (구분코드, 분야명, 분야설명). It also gives domain examples, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like get_social_volunteer_matching.

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 provides concrete usage guidance for the keyword parameter, explaining that it performs a partial match on 필드명 with examples. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so the routing guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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