get_alio_institution_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the output fields (regulation count, distribution, revision frequency, recent revisions) implying a read operation. However, it does not explicitly declare read-only status, side effects, or authentication requirements, which is a minor gap.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, output, and use case. It is front-loaded with the key verb '요약' (summary) and contains no superfluous words.

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 the three parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior by listing the key output fields. It could be slightly more specific about the response format, but the provided details are sufficient for understanding the tool's capabilities.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters (institution code/name, topCategories count, recentRevisions count). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 provides a summary of a public institution's regulation system, including number of regulations, distribution, average revision frequency, and recent revisions. It specifies the verb '요약' (summary) and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_alio_statistics or search_institution.

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 explicitly says '비교 전 사전 조사 또는 처음 보는 기관 빠른 파악용' (for preliminary research before comparison or quick understanding of a new institution), providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives.

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