oecd_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the default behavior ('비우면 최신값' – empty period yields latest value) and gives input examples. However, it does not disclose error handling, exact return format, or potential limitations; the output schema mitigates the return format 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 brief, front-loaded with purpose, and uses three short bullet-style lines for parameters. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no redundant repetition of schema fields.

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?

For a simple lookup with an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameters, formats, and a pointer to the indicator list. It lacks only minor details like behavior for invalid inputs, but is otherwise complete for typical use.

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 compensates by providing concrete examples for each parameter (indicator names, country variants like '한국'/'KOR', period formats). It adds value beyond the bare schema by explaining formats and defaults.

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 performs an 'OECD 단일 수치 조회' (single value lookup) and returns the latest or specified-period value for a given country and indicator. This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from siblings like oecd_trend (time series) and oecd_compare (comparison).

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 implies use when a single value is needed and explicitly advises referencing oecd_list_indicators for indicator names. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or mention alternative siblings, but the single-value scope is clear and provides adequate context.

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