get_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. '조회합니다' conveys a read-only query, but it does not mention what statistics are returned, whether they are aggregated, or any limitations. It provides minimal but non-misleading behavioral context.

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 short sentence with no redundant wording. It front-loads the verb and resource, making it appropriately sized for a simple parameterless statistics query.

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 is adequate for a simple parameterless tool, but because there is no output schema, it does not explain what statistics are included or how results are presented. This is a moderate gap: an agent can invoke the tool correctly, but may not know what to expect in the response.

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 has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty and there is nothing meaningful to document. Per rubric, a parameterless tool gets a baseline of 4; the description adds no unnecessary parameter details.

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 states a specific verb ('조회합니다' – retrieves) and a distinct resource ('상업등기선례 통계' – commercial registration precedent statistics). This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings that search, get, or list precedents, so an agent can identify its purpose without opening schemas.

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 get_stats versus search_precedents, get_precedent_by_number, or list_precedents. The description implies a distinct statistics use case, but it does not state when the agent should choose this tool over the alternatives.

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