임부금기 의약품 정보 조회(식약처 DUR 공공데이터)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, and the description adds genuinely new context: an external API key (DATA_GO_KR_SERVICE_KEY) is a prerequisite, results are summarized rather than exhaustive, and the tool explicitly does not assess risk or suitability. It does not discuss rate limits, error behavior, or result ordering, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and return payload, followed by search advice and then the safety/credential caveats. Efficient overall, with minor duplication of the ingredient-name advice that also lives in 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 two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description supplies the return field list, the credential prerequisite, the negative-result caveat, and the scope limit. An agent has everything needed to call it and to frame the result responsibly.

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 both drug_name and limit are fully documented in the schema itself. The description's ingredient-name recommendation restates what the drug_name schema description already says, adding no new meaning; 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?

States a specific verb and resource: lookup of MFDS DUR pregnancy-contraindication items by drug name, and enumerates the fields returned (item name, company, contraindicated ingredient, dosage form, contraindication text, notes, notification date). Nothing among the siblings (leave articles, timelines, daycare, clinics, benefits) overlaps, so the agent can route here unambiguously.

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?

Gives clear operative guidance: search by ingredient name because product names may not resolve, and consult a clinician rather than relying on the tool for a negative result. It does not name an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use condition, but no sibling competes for this task.

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