get_ems_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb '조회' (inquiry) indicates a read-only operation, which is a behavioral trait. However, the description does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, or error handling. It adds some value but stops short of full transparency.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and adds a parenthetical clarifying the metric type. There is zero wasted text, making it exceptionally efficient.

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 tool has six parameters, one required, and no output schema or annotations. The description clarifies the domain (traffic accident ambulance stats) and the core metric, but it does not explain pagination, filtering behavior, or how to interpret the results. For a moderately complex stats tool, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The input schema covers all six parameters with clear descriptions, including examples for 'sido' and a regex pattern for 'month'. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: it retrieves EMS activity statistics (traffic accident ambulance dispatch and transport counts) broken down by provincial headquarters and fire station. The Korean terms '구급활동' and '교통사고' make it specific and distinguish it from sibling fire-related search 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 description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_fire_stats. However, the focus on ambulance/EMS activity implies its use case, and the sibling tools are clearly fire-oriented. This is enough for implied usage but lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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