oecd_describe_flow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that OECD definitions are included and explains max_codes limiting behavior. However, it does not mention read-only nature or error conditions, leaving gaps in behavioral 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 four sentences with the core purpose first, followed by context, usage timing, and a parameter hint. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

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 an output schema exists, return details are covered. The description provides purpose, usage timing, and max_codes guidance. It lacks an example but is sufficiently complete for a describe-style 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains max_codes precisely ('차원당 표시할 코드 수(기본 40)') but leaves agency, flow, and version self-explanatory without further meaning. This is adequate but not fully compensating.

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 returns the dimension list and selectable codes for a specific dataflow, using a specific verb ('반환한다') and naming the resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning as a precursor to oecd_raw_query, indicating it describes structure rather than retrieving data.

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 an explicit usage instruction: 'oecd_raw_query의 filters를 조립하기 전에 호출한다' (call before assembling filters). This provides clear contextual timing but does not mention alternatives or when not to use the tool.

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