get_key_indicator_details

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

Discloses parameter priority (start/end date overrides recent_n) and pagination behavior. Also states the return structure. However, with no annotations, it fails to mention whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits, leaving gaps in safety and usage constraints.

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 structured with an introductory sentence, a code-like service call, then Args and Returns sections. It is somewhat verbose, but the structure aids readability. Could be more concise by removing redundant elements like the service call string.

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?

Covers parameters and return format adequately given the tool's complexity (6 params, 1 required). However, it lacks broader context such as how it differs from get_key_indicator (which may also provide details), and does not mention output schema details even though one exists. The tool sits in a large sibling set, but no comparative info is provided.

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?

Since the input schema has 0% description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: jipyo_id (required), start_date/end_date with examples, recent_n with conflict behavior, and page/limit. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type/default info, though date format specifics could be clearer.

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 it queries 'time series detailed data of KOSIS statistical key indicators', clearly identifying the resource and action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_key_indicators and search_key_indicators which are for listing or searching, while this tool provides details for a specific indicator.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or compare with siblings like get_key_indicator or get_statistics_data, leaving the agent to infer context.

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