포트원 결제 내역 검색

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It does clarify AND semantics ('모두 만족하는') and includes two useful cautions about imp_uid identification and timezone handling. However, it does not discuss pagination behavior, rate limits, or error conditions, leaving some gaps.

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 compact and well-structured: one main sentence followed by two bullet-point notes. Every sentence provides useful information, with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by essential caveats.

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?

Although the tool has 15 parameters and an output schema, the description is brief. It covers AND semantics and two caveats, but does not mention pagination defaults, how filters combine across multiple parameters, or any prerequisites. The output schema fills return-value details, but overall context feels slightly under-specified for such a complex 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by explaining that IDs starting with imp_/imps_ may be V1 imp_uid values, which clarifies the 'id' parameter. The timezone note directly informs the 'from' and 'to' parameters, enriching 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 it searches payment history on the PortOne server that satisfies all given conditions. The verb '검색합니다' (search) and resource '결제 내역' (payment history) are specific and distinguish it from sibling settlement or reconciliation search tools.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getReconciliationsByFilter or getSettlementSummaries. The notes about imp_uid and timezone are cautions, not usage directives. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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