거래대사 정산 통계 조회

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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses behavioral traits: it is a read-only query, requires specific date formatting, has period constraints, and optionally filters by store. It does not mention error handling for constraint violations but covers the main behavioral aspects.

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 well-structured: first sentence for purpose, second for output, then format, constraints, and related tool. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 that an output schema exists, the description appropriately omits return value details but mentions aggregated and daily statistics. It covers input parameters fully, including constraints and optionality. Minor gaps like error handling are acceptable for a query tool with good schema support.

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?

The input schema already describes all 3 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by specifying the date format requirement, period constraints, and the suggestion to use list_stores for store IDs. It also clarifies that the store parameter is optional and defaults to all stores.

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 retrieves settlement statistics for a specific sub-store, provides aggregated by currency and daily stats, and uses a specific verb '조회합니다' (retrieves). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on store-level statistics, though sibling descriptions are not provided.

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 gives explicit usage constraints: date format (YYYY-MM-DD), period limits (from within 6 months, max 1 month), and a reference to list_stores for obtaining store IDs. It does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like getSettlementSummaries, but the constraints are clear and actionable.

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