oecd_raw_query

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

With no annotations, the description bears full behavioral burden. It only explains the 'filters' parameter's list-to-'+' behavior, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, how errors are presented, pagination, or any other operational traits expected from a raw query tool.

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 extremely concise: one purpose sentence and one parameter example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no wasted words, making it easy to scan quickly.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool is a 7-parameter raw query with no annotations. The description only documents one parameter and gives minimal usage context, leaving significant gaps for an agent attempting to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning only for the 'filters' parameter via an example and list behavior, while the other 6 parameters (agency, flow, start, end, last_n, version) remain entirely undocumented.

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: '직접 조회한다' (directly queries) '등록되지 않은 OECD 통계' (unregistered OECD statistics). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by framing it as an 'escape hatch' for data not covered by the registered/curated tools.

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 phrase '등록되지 않은 OECD 통계' and '탈출구' (escape hatch) clearly imply use when other tools (like oecd_stats, oecd_trend) do not cover a given statistic. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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