ecount_create_goods_issued

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a rate limit ('[Rate Limit: 10초/1회]') and a detailed response format ('[Response: success(성공건수), failed(실패건수), slipNos(전표번호 배열 - YYYYMMDD-N 형식), details(상세결과 - IsSuccess, TotalError, Errors 배열)]'), providing valuable operational context beyond the schema.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose. It provides required fields, rate limit, and response format in a structured, compact format without unnecessary verbosity. Every sentence adds useful 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 creation tool with nested items array, the description covers key operational aspects: rate limit, required fields, and response envelope. While it does not explain maxItems (300) or item grouping behaviors, those are covered in the schema, and the response format is described, making the tool usable.

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 has 100% description coverage, with each parameter documented (e.g., WH_CD_F '자재를 보내는 창고', UPLOAD_SER_NO '같은 순번의 항목들은 하나의 전표로 묶임'). The description only reiterates that PROD_CD, WH_CD_F, WH_CD_T, and QTY are required, which is already in the schema, adding no extra semantic value.

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: '생산불출 입력' (production issue input), registering a slip for issuing materials for production. It further clarifies the direction (warehouse to production factory) and distinguishes it from related tools like goods receipt or sales orders.

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 specifies when to use it: '창고에서 생산 공장으로 원자재를 불출할 때 사용합니다' (used when issuing raw materials from warehouse to production factory). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear enough.

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