browse_categories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It transparently explains the three browsing modes, how 'code' behaves for each, and the return format. It does not mention side effects, authentication, or rate limits, but the tool appears to be a read-only data browser, and the description sets proper expectations.

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 with Args, Returns, and Example sections. It front-loads the purpose. Some redundancy (e.g., listing all vwCd values could be condensed), but overall it is efficient and every sentence adds value.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 params, 3 modes, variable return shape), the description is complete. It covers inputs, examples, and output format. Sibling tools like 'search_statistics' are handled by the purpose distinction. No output schema is provided, but the description offers a clear return structure.

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 coverage is 0% (no descriptions in schema), but the description fully documents both parameters. It explains all valid values for 'by' and how 'code' maps to each mode with concrete examples. This adds significant meaning beyond the minimal schema.

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 browses KOSIS statistics lists by institution, theme, or custom view. It specifies the resource ('KOSIS 통계 목록') and the action ('탐색합니다'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'search_statistics' (search) and 'filter_statistics' (filter), which have different purposes.

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 provides detailed guidance on when to use each 'by' value with examples and code explanations. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose correctly.

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