품목별 사전규격 조회

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description reveals that when 'kind' is unspecified, the tool performs parallel queries across all divisions, and that data is limited to registrations after January 2025. No contradictions with annotations.

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 with four sentences. The first sentence states the main purpose, followed by usage guidance and behavioral notes. No redundant 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?

For a tool with 8 parameters (all documented in schema), the description covers purpose, usage, uniqueness, data scope, and behavioral note. Minor missing: defaults for pagination and date range, but those are in schema. Adequate 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 baseline is 3. The description briefly mentions key parameters (품명, 세부품명) but does not add significant additional meaning beyond 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 the verb '조회' (search) and resource '사전규격' (pre-specifications), specifying the search criteria as 품명 and 세부품명. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by naming alternatives and their use cases.

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 explicit when-to-use context ('관심 품목의 사전규격을 찾을 때'), names alternative tools for other cases, and notes that detail product name search is unique to this tool. Also explains behavior when no 업무구분 is specified and data recency.

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