List User Policies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuine behavioral constraint — only '활성' (active) contracts and riders are returned, not terminated ones — which is real information beyond the name. However, it says nothing about authorization, what the pin parameter implies for access, or any limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient to the point of under-specification, but nothing in the text wastes space.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But with no annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and an unexplained optional pin, a two-parameter retrieval tool needs more than one sentence to be safely invocable.

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% across two parameters, so the description must compensate and largely fails. '사용자의' hints at a user identifier, but the pin parameter — optional, nullable, defaulting to null — is never explained at all, leaving the agent to guess whether it gates access or is a verification secret.

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 (조회합니다 = retrieve) and a specific resource (사용자의 활성 보험 계약 및 특약 = the user's active insurance contracts and riders), adding the rider dimension that the name 'policies' does not convey. It is clear enough to distinguish from mutation siblings like register_user_policy or delete_user_policy, though it never names them.

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 offers no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no mention of the related siblings (e.g. list_standard_rules, resolve_user_rider, get_user_profile). An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the read path for per-user policy data.

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