규격서 의견 조회

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable context: data is limited to Jan 2025 onward, and parallel query behavior when kind unspecified. No contradictions, so score 4.

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 well-structured sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. Excellent 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 the complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers data recency, parallel behavior, and dependency on sibling tools. Could mention pagination defaults, but strong overall.

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 all 6 parameters. The description adds minor value by stating specRegistNo takes priority over dates, but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: listing opinions/answers on a specific pre-specification (by registNo). It uses specific verb-resource combination and explicitly distinguishes from sibling search_prespecs tools, scoring a 5.

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 clear guidance: use after obtaining registNo from search_prespecs, and explains behavior when kind is unspecified (parallel query). It lacks explicit when-not guidance but the sibling reference serves as a clear alternative, earning a 4.

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