교육과정 원문 청크 조회

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by stating that it returns the '원문 청크와 정확한 출처 위치' (original text chunk and exact source location), which is behavioral information not present in the annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 that clearly communicates the tool's purpose and inputs without wasted words. It is concise and efficient, with no redundant information.

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 retrieval tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately states what is returned (chunk and source location) but lacks details about maxChars behavior, error conditions, or response format. Given the absence of an output schema, more detail about the return value would improve completeness, but the description is minimally acceptable.

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 mentions sourceId and chunkId as inputs but does not explain their meanings beyond the names, and completely omits maxChars, which controls chunk length. The agent cannot infer syntax or purpose of maxChars from the description, leaving a significant gap.

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's function with a specific verb ('조회합니다' - retrieves) and resource ('educational curriculum chunk'), and explicitly mentions the inputs (sourceId and chunkId) and outputs (original text chunk and exact source location). It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_curriculum by targeting a specific chunk from search results.

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 the tool is for use after a search ('검색 결과의'), providing clear context that it retrieves a chunk given IDs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is evident from the phrasing, making it clear when to use it versus a search tool.

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