kosis_export

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the output artifact structure (two sheets, xlsx + CSV) and the KOSIS_EXPORT_DIR configuration, but says nothing about overwrite behavior, required write permissions on the directory, or whether a file path/confirmation is returned.

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 tightly packed sentences: the operation and output formats come first, the output-location detail second. No filler and nothing redundant with the schema.

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 nine-parameter export tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the operation, artifacts, and destination folder but omits what the call returns (e.g., saved path) and any failure/overwrite semantics. Adequate but leaves real gaps for a write-to-disk 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%, so all nine parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the KOSIS_EXPORT_DIR environmental note; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (저장합니다 / save) and resource (통계표 자료), plus the concrete output forms (xlsx, CSV, raw-data sheet + time-period sheet). This clearly separates it from data-fetching siblings like kosis_data, though the description never names an alternative explicitly.

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 purpose implies 'use this when you want the table written to disk rather than returned in-chat', but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to the sibling kosis_data it overlaps with. Usage must be inferred from the name and format details.

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