ecount_create_goods_receipt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the rate limit (10초/1회) and response structure (success, failed, slipNos, details), which are useful behavioral traits. It does not discuss side effects beyond creation, but for a create operation this is acceptable.

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 reasonably concise, with a brief purpose statement followed by usage and response details in bracketed sections. It is front-loaded and readable, though the opening '생산입고 I 입력' is slightly terse.

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 create tool with one parameter, the description plus schema covers the needed context: purpose, when to use, required field, and response format. Since there is no output schema, including response details in the description is helpful and complete enough.

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 each parameter. The description highlights PROD_CD as required and mentions that QTY/PRICE are specified, but adds little beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 it registers a slip for receiving finished goods from production ('생산 완료된 완제품을 입고하는 전표를 등록합니다'), using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like ecount_create_goods_issued by explicitly focusing on production input.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use guidance: '생산이 완료되어 완제품이 창고에 입고될 때 사용합니다' (use when production is complete and finished goods are received into warehouse). It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context of production receipt is unambiguous.

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