search_fire_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns counts for reception, in-progress, false alarms, and self-extinguishing, giving some insight into the data content. However, it does not mention read-only safety, pagination behavior, rate limits, or error handling, which are important for a search API.

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 highly concise, with two short sentences. The first sentence is front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second adds valuable detail about the data categories. No redundant or filler content.

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 low complexity with 3 well-documented parameters and no output schema. The description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and the nature of the returned data. However, it could be more complete by noting that results are paginated or that the API is read-only, though these are partly inferable from the schema.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (date, pageNo, numOfRows). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the overall purpose, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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: '날짜별 화재발생현황 조회' (search fire occurrence status by date), with a specific resource (National Fire Agency national fire information) and data categories (접수, 진행, 오인, 자체진화). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_fire_building, which focuses on building-specific information.

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 usage for date-based fire statistics through the date parameter, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks guidance on exclusions or when to prefer sibling tools such as search_fire_building or get_ems_stats.

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