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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool adds a channel, lacking details on side effects, idempotency, required permissions, or error conditions. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 with two sentences: a main statement and a NOTE. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the NOTE could be integrated for better flow.

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 add tool with an output schema, the description is adequate but lacks context on when to use it versus sibling tools (beyond the MID note) and does not discuss concurrency or error outcomes. The behavioral gaps lower the score.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it reinforces the MID parameter's source but does not clarify 'manualConfirm' behavior beyond its schema description.

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 tool's function: adding a public test channel to the merchant's representative store. The verb 'add' and resource 'test channel' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like listSharedTestChannels (which retrieves MIDs) and getChannelsOfStore (which lists existing channels).

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 NOTE explicitly instructs users to obtain the MID from listSharedTestChannels before using this tool, providing clear prerequisite guidance. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for different scenarios.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the tool 'retrieves' information, implying read-only, but does not mention any side effects, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens if the store does not exist. This leaves significant gaps for a safe operation.

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 a single, concise sentence that conveys the core purpose without fluff. While it could benefit from a more structured format (e.g., bullet points for key details), it is not verbose and avoids 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?

Given the presence of an output schema, return values need not be described. However, the description lacks any contextual information about when to use this tool, prerequisites (e.g., valid store ID), or how the 'fields' parameter affects the output. It is minimally adequate for a simple retrieval tool but leaves room for improvement.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (store, fields) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 action (get all channels) and the resource (a store's channels). The name and title reinforce this, making it easy for an agent to understand what the tool does. It is distinct from siblings like addTestChannel (create) and getPaymentsByFilter (different entity).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as addTestChannel or getPaymentsByFilter. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent without decision support.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It does clarify AND semantics ('모두 만족하는') and includes two useful cautions about imp_uid identification and timezone handling. However, it does not discuss pagination behavior, rate limits, or error conditions, leaving some 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: one main sentence followed by two bullet-point notes. Every sentence provides useful information, with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by essential caveats.

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?

Although the tool has 15 parameters and an output schema, the description is brief. It covers AND semantics and two caveats, but does not mention pagination defaults, how filters combine across multiple parameters, or any prerequisites. The output schema fills return-value details, but overall context feels slightly under-specified for such a complex 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by explaining that IDs starting with imp_/imps_ may be V1 imp_uid values, which clarifies the 'id' parameter. The timezone note directly informs the 'from' and 'to' parameters, enriching the schema descriptions.

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 it searches payment history on the PortOne server that satisfies all given conditions. The verb '검색합니다' (search) and resource '결제 내역' (payment history) are specific and distinguish it from sibling settlement or reconciliation search tools.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getReconciliationsByFilter or getSettlementSummaries. The notes about imp_uid and timezone are cautions, not usage directives. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not mention side effects, read-only nature, auth requirements, or rate limits. While 'get' suggests read-only, it is not explicit.

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 very concise with only two sentences and a note, front-loading the purpose. Every sentence adds value with no superfluous 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?

Given an output schema exists (not shown) and one parameter, the description adequately explains functionality and when to use alternatives. Missing auth/behavioral context slightly lowers score.

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 coverage is 100% with clear description of the 'path' parameter. The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, achieving baseline 3.

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 it retrieves web-accessible links for PortOne documents given their paths, distinguishing itself from readPortoneDoc which also returns content and metadata.

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 note explicitly recommends readPortoneDoc for single documents needing content, implying getPortoneDocsUrl is for links only or multiple documents. No explicit 'when not to use' but context is clear.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses statuses, how to get mismatch details (notMatchedReasons) and incomparable reasons, and the merging of backward incomparable. Missing pagination details (after, first) but overall good.

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?

Description is concise yet informative, with front-loaded purpose and well-organized details. Each sentence adds value; could be slightly tighter but no 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?

Covers core functionality, statuses, date constraints, and store lookup. Output schema exists so return format is handled. Missing pagination explanation but overall complete for the tool's complexity.

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 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds meaning by explaining statuses, dateType, and constraints. Adds context like using list_stores to get store ID, which is beyond schema.

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 tool retrieves transaction reconciliation details for a specific sub-store. It mentions distinct statuses and differentiates from siblings like getPaymentsByFilter (payments) and getSettlementStatistics (statistics).

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?

Provides clear usage context: date format, query period constraints (last 6 months, max 2 weeks), and suggests using list_stores for store ID. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use alternatives but sufficient for typical use.

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

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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses behavioral traits: it is a read-only query, requires specific date formatting, has period constraints, and optionally filters by store. It does not mention error handling for constraint violations but covers the main behavioral aspects.

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 well-structured: first sentence for purpose, second for output, then format, constraints, and related tool. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description appropriately omits return value details but mentions aggregated and daily statistics. It covers input parameters fully, including constraints and optionality. Minor gaps like error handling are acceptable for a query tool with good schema support.

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 input schema already describes all 3 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by specifying the date format requirement, period constraints, and the suggestion to use list_stores for store IDs. It also clarifies that the store parameter is optional and defaults to all stores.

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 tool retrieves settlement statistics for a specific sub-store, provides aggregated by currency and daily stats, and uses a specific verb '조회합니다' (retrieves). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on store-level statistics, though sibling descriptions are not provided.

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 explicit usage constraints: date format (YYYY-MM-DD), period limits (from within 6 months, max 1 month), and a reference to list_stores for obtaining store IDs. It does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like getSettlementSummaries, but the constraints are clear and actionable.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full weight. It discloses date format, range limits, pagination (after, first), and store filtering. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication needs, or potential side effects. For a read operation, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 relatively concise with 6 sentences, starting with the main purpose. It is well-structured but could be slightly more streamlined without losing information.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the typical usage scenario. It mentions the data provided (amounts, fees, cancellations, adjustments) and constraints. Could add edge cases or error conditions, but overall sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value beyond the schema: it explains that store is optional and can be obtained from list_stores, and that after is for pagination. This contextual guidance enhances parameter understanding.

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 it retrieves daily settlement summaries for a specific sub-store. It names the resource (settlement summaries) and the action (retrieve). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like getSettlementStatistics, the focus on daily summaries by settlement date distinguishes it well.

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 explicit usage context: date format (YYYY-MM-DD), time constraints (from within last 6 months, max 1 month range), and store retrieval via list_stores. It does not state when not to use it, but the constraints give clear guidance on valid inputs.

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

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

The description mentions tree form and returned fields, but does not disclose read-only nature, authentication, side effects, or rate limits. With no annotations, the description carries the burden but only partially fulfills it.

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 with three sentences, but the note about omitFiles adds unnecessary confusion and could be omitted.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, output fields, and an operational note. The inconsistency in the note slightly reduces completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description adds little beyond the schema; the note about omitFiles is inconsistent with the actual parameters.

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 it retrieves all PortOne documents under a specific path in tree form, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on URLs, single documents, schemas, or search.

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?

Usage is implied for listing documents, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The note about omitFiles is confusing as the parameter does not exist in the schema.

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

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

No annotations provided. Description lacks behavioral details such as pagination, authentication requirements, or rate limits. As a simple listing tool, minimal disclosure, but still no extra context beyond purpose.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the key action. Efficient but could include more detail without losing conciseness.

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?

Given low complexity (1 optional param, output schema exists), the minimal description is adequate but does not fully explain what the returned list contains. Output schema may compensate, but description should ideally complement it.

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 coverage is 100% with one optional parameter (pgProviders) having a description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 clearly states it retrieves a list of test channels provided by PortOne. It is distinct from siblings like addTestChannel and getChannelsOfStore, which perform different operations.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like getChannelsOfStore or addTestChannel. Usage context is implied but not clearly stated.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'gets information', implying a read-only operation, but lacks details such as whether pagination, ordering, or authentication constraints apply. This is minimal disclosure.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose. Every word is necessary and contributes to clarity. No wasted information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no nested objects, output schema present), the description fully captures its purpose. There is no need for additional context like return value details, as the output schema presumably covers that.

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 input schema has no parameters, and schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema. Per the baseline rule, score is 3.

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 that the tool retrieves information of representative and sub-stores connected to the Portone account. It uses a specific verb ('가져옵니다') and resource ('상점 정보'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like getChannelsOfStore or addTestChannel.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use it, nor does it reference siblings such as getChannelsOfStore which might be relevant for channel-related queries.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves content, metadata, and URL, and mentions range parameters. However, it does not explicitly state it is read-only or any caveats about access or side effects.

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 very concise: two sentences with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the main purpose followed by usage note.

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?

Given the complexity (4 params, output schema exists), the description covers the main workflow and parameter usage. It does not detail output structure or error handling, but the output schema likely accounts for that.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already described in the schema. The description adds context about the workflow and endpoint, but does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 tool reads a specific PortOne document by path, returning content, metadata, and URL. It distinguishes from siblings like listPortoneDocs and regexSearchPortoneDocs.

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 explicitly advises to first use listPortoneDocs to get the path, then pass it to readPortoneDoc. This provides clear sequential guidance, though it does not mention when not to use or alternative tools.

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

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

No annotations provided; description only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits (e.g., read-only nature, auth requirements, side effects). As the sole source of behavioral info, it is insufficient.

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?

Single sentence that is concise, front-loaded with key information, and contains no filler. Every word serves a purpose.

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 output schema present, return values are covered. However, the description lacks guidance on constructing the `yaml_path` parameter (e.g., examples or format), which is critical for correct usage.

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 coverage is 100%, and description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The description reiterates '특정 path' but does not elaborate on parameter usage or constraints.

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 clearly states it returns data for a specific path within the PortOne OpenAPI schema for a requested version, using the verb '반환' and specifying the resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like readPortoneOpenapiSchemaSummary.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., readPortoneOpenapiSchemaSummary, getPortoneDocsUrl). No mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It states the tool returns a string summary including all REST APIs, which is basic but lacks details on caching, performance, or format of the summary.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words, and front-loaded with the action and object.

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?

Tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema (not shown but present). Description explains return type ('string') and scope ('all REST APIs'), which is sufficient for an agent to use it. Minor gap: no mention of summary format (e.g., plain text, JSON).

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 covers the 'version' parameter with enum and description (100% coverage), baseline 3. The description adds that the summary includes all REST APIs for that version, adding meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 tool returns a summary of the OpenAPI schema as a string for a given PortOne version. It distinguishes from the sibling 'readPortoneOpenapiSchema' which presumably returns the full schema.

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 implies usage when a summary is needed rather than the full schema, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives is provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says it fetches code examples without disclosing read-only nature, side effects, or other behavioral traits.

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?

Two concise sentences with the primary action first, though the contradiction reduces clarity.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain what the code example contains or how it is structured, leaving the agent without essential usage context.

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 description adds that only framework is required, but the input schema marks pg and pay_method as required, creating a contradiction that could confuse the agent.

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 it retrieves Portone V2 backend code examples based on parameters, and the title and sibling tool (readPortoneV2FrontendCode) differentiate it from frontend code retrieval.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use this tool first when writing Portone V2 code, but does not mention when not to use or provide alternatives.

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

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

Description contradicts the input schema: it claims all args except framework are optional, but schema marks pg and pay_method as required. No other behavioral traits disclosed, and no annotations provided.

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?

Description is relatively concise with three sentences, but the third sentence contains inaccurate information, reducing effectiveness.

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?

No output schema or annotations. Description fails to explain return format, language, or example structure. Incomplete for a code example 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 100%, but description adds contradictory guidance on required fields. It does not meaningfully augment parameter understanding.

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 clearly states that it fetches Portone V2 frontend code examples, distinguishing it from sibling tool readPortoneV2BackendCode. Title reinforces the purpose.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call this tool first before writing any code related to Portone V2, providing clear context. However, it does not specify when not to use or mention alternatives explicitly.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool searches both metadata and content, supports pagination (page/limit), truncation, and context extraction. However, it does not mention authorization or rate limits.

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 two sentences: first states the primary function, second provides usage context. No unnecessary words; efficiently conveys key information.

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?

Given 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and mentions important aspects (path restriction, query format). It lacks details on return structure and error handling, but is adequate for a search 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, e.g., the query format and the paths prefix concept are already in the schema.

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 tool searches for regex matches in PortOne docs under a specific path using Node.js RegExp format. It distinguishes from sibling tools like listPortoneDocs and readPortoneDoc by emphasizing regex-based search.

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 specifies when to use the tool: 'if you want to find relevant PortOne docs based on regex.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear.

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