kosis_explain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds content-level behavior by listing what the explanation contains, but it does not discuss return format or limitations. This is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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?

Two short sentences with no fluff; the resource type comes first and the usage rationale second. It is concise and front-loaded, though the second sentence is somewhat indirect.

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 simple two-parameter read-only tool, the description covers return content and one use case. However, there is no output schema and no explanation of parameter semantics, so an agent cannot fully infer invocation details from this description alone.

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 0% and the description does not explain org_id or tbl_id formats, provenance, or how to obtain them. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 states that the tool provides statistical explanation/survey overview with purpose, basis, period, and scope. This is specific enough to identify the tool's resource and distinguish it from generic data or status siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with kosis_meta.

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?

It gives a clear usage context: statistical tables lack abstracts, so this explanation is material when relevance scoring or summarization is needed. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the intended use case is explicit.

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