ecount_create_product

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the rate limit (10 seconds/1 request), response format (success/failed/slipNos/details), and batch limit (300). However, it does not explicitly state the mutating nature beyond '등록' (register) or describe error handling for duplicates/partial failures beyond the response counts.

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, with three sentences covering purpose, required/optional fields, and batch capacity, followed by a structured rate limit and response section. It is front-loaded and every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.

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 schema fully describes the single parameter's nested structure and constraints, while the description covers the response format and rate limit. It lacks explicit usage guidance versus alternatives or detailed error semantics, but for a batch-create tool with full schema coverage, it is largely 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters have comprehensive descriptions with constraints. The tool description only adds a high-level summary of required vs optional fields, which is already contained in the schema. It provides no additional semantic depth beyond what the schema already offers.

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 '새로운 품목을 ECOUNT에 등록합니다' (registers new products to ECOUNT), specifying the action (register) and resource (products). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_customer or create_sale, and it also highlights required vs optional fields.

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 creating new products, which clearly differentiates it from other creation tools. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives or any exclusions, but the context is clear enough for proper selection.

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