ecount_create_sale_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the rate limit (10초/1회), response format (success, failed, slipNos, details), and grouping behavior (UPLOAD_SER_NO groups items into one order). It does not explicitly mention side effects like updating the quotation status, but the create operation's additive nature reduces the need. This is solid 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 concise, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence adds value: use case, required parameters, grouping logic, rate limit, and response structure. There is no fluff or redundant phrasing.

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 complex tool with a single array parameter with many sub-fields, the description covers the essential operational context: what it does, when to use it, key constraints (PROD_CD required), grouping behavior, rate limiting, and response fields. The schema covers all parameter semantics, and the description provides the meta-information an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds emphasis on PROD_CD being required and DUE_DATE being specifiable, and repeats the UPLOAD_SER_NO grouping semantics already present in the schema. It does not provide additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the description's contribution is minimal but consistent.

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: '주문서 입력' (order entry) and '고객으로부터 받은 주문을 ECOUNT에 등록합니다' (registers customer orders in ECOUNT). It also distinguishes from siblings by specifying the use case: '견적서가 확정되어 주문으로 전환될 때 사용합니다' (used when a quotation is confirmed and converted to an order).

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 provides a clear context for when to use the tool ('견적서가 확정되어 주문으로 전환될 때'), but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. The scenario is specific enough to guide selection, though it could be stronger with explicit exclusions.

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