na_toc

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: it explains that the raw HTML is escaped, that the tool unescapes and converts it to newline text, that the main delimiter is '<p>', and that hierarchy is preserved via line indentation. It also documents the no-TOC case as normal. The readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations are consistent and this context enriches them significantly.

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: purpose first, then parameter meaning, then usage warnings presented as clear bullet-like lines. Every sentence earns its place, but the ambiguous phrase '다음 자료종은' promises a list of excluded material types that is not actually enumerated, slightly weakening the structure.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the input source, output transformation, empty-result behavior, and quota-aware usage guidance. The main gap is the unspecified list of material types that all have TOC='N', which leaves part of the exclusion advice incomplete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that 'controlno' is the control number from search results ('검색 결과의 제어번호'). This adds meaningful sourcing context beyond the bare schema. It does not include example formats, but with a single string parameter this is adequate.

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: it retrieves table-of-contents information for one control number ('제어번호 1건의 목차정보를 조회한다'). The [목차] prefix and the scope make the purpose unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like na_detail or na_fields.

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 clear selection criteria: call this tool only when the search result's '목차' field is 'Y', and warns that records without TOC are normal. It also notes that certain material types have all 'N' values and should not be called. It does not name alternative tools, so it stops short of full when-to-use-versus-alternatives guidance.

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