kosis_status

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral traits: it checks authentication-key possession and performs one live network round trip to KOSIS. This reveals the external dependency, latency, and auth-relevant behavior, which are valuable for the agent to anticipate.

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 entire description is one short, front-loaded sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and behavior with no filler. Every part of the description adds 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 zero-parameter status-check tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it says what is checked and that a live network call occurs. The only minor gap is that it does not specify the exact return format, but this is low-impact for such a simple 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameter meanings since there are none.

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 a specific verb and resource: '연결 점검' (connection check) for KOSIS, and specifies two concrete checks: whether an API key is held and whether one actual round trip works. This clearly distinguishes the status tool from siblings like kosis_data, kosis_search, or kosis_explain.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when an agent needs to verify KOSIS connectivity or API key validity before relying on other KOSIS operations. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but none of the sibling tools serve this health-check role, so the context is sufficient.

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